Anything Political

[DJ360 6,730]

19 hours ago, Brew said:

From the start I've had doubts and objections vis-à-vis HS2. It was proposed at a cost of £37/40 million and an estimated reduction in journey time of 40 of minutes. Hardly value  in my opinion.

 

I shared your doubts re: the proposed benefits, but the project clearly wasn't 'sold' well, as it's only in recent days that I've understood that there was also an ambition to reduce 'congestion' on the West Coast Mainline, which currently limits capacity.

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Time will tell if Sunak's decision is brave or foolish.

 

Frankly, I'm more interested in his vague proposals to spend 'every penny' on 'hundreds of projects country wide'. Frankly I don't believe a word of it.  In fact, there is already evidence that he's claiming things that have ALREADY been done, such as the Clifton South extension of the Nottm trams.

 

Starmer and Labour only need to deliver 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' to show a common sense and useful achievement.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Cancelling a major project is not new. Harold Wilson cancelled TSR2, P1154 and HS681, potentially world beating aircraft and all within 6 months of taking power. There was also at the time some rumour of a deal between Dennis Healey and the US secretary of state that sealed the aircrafts fate.

 

I was disappointed with TSR2 cancellation at the time, but more for 'Boy's Own' reasons than cold hard pragmatism.

I'm not sure that Wilson, or anyone else's actions in 1965, almost 60 years ago, have much bearing on Sunak's current problems, but, for what it's worth, TSR2 was not simply cancelled 'on a whim', by Wilson. It was a victim of a protracted and complex series of factors... RAF v Navy infighting, constantly revised specifications, American competition, political skulduggery from ALL sides, the state of the UK aircraft industry and changing visions of how defence and offensive 'strike' actions would develop etc. Both ICBMs and cruise missiles largely supplanted the offensive or 'strike' requirements of TSR2. There is masses of stuff online about it.

 

[DJ360 6,730]

17 hours ago, philmayfield said:

Wilson had all of the tools and jigs destroyed.

 

And yet, there are two preserved examples.  I've seen the one at Cosford.

 

As for destroying stuff, I well recall the unedifying sight of Nimrod MRA4s being  publicly and gleefully ripped apart by construction machinery after the project was scrapped by the Tory- Lib Dem Coalition.

 

It was Thatcher who scrapped the Nimrod AEW project in 1986.

[DJ360 6,730]

19 hours ago, Brew said:

 

I most definitely do not agree with him being thrown out but disgusting?

 

Was it any more disgusting than Walter Wolfgang, an 82 yr old man, a card carrying, life long member of the Labour party who was physically dragged out of conference for protesting about something a little more serious than a few bruised egos. The Iraq war.

 

Both were wrong.

 

Do you have any views on the increasingly obvious 'Culture Wars' aspect.. as Tory rhetoric and even policy is increasingly driven by far right, reactionary ideology which seeks to blame everything on the fantasy of 'Woke', to attack the whole LGBTQ+ cohort, to employ thinly disguised racism and xenophobia to blame immigrants for the Govt's own failures, to blame hardworking people for 'causing inflation' by asking for fair wages.. etc.. etc.. etc..

They'll be burning books next...

[Brew 5,419]

It's a sad fact but we have to accept 'woke' has been utterly transmogrified by those who neither know nor care about its origins.

I said some time ago words, their meanings and associations, can morph into something entirely different. As with the term 'gay' so it is with 'woke'.

It is now a blanket term for excessive political correctness, an extremist interpretation used by zealots. As a  pejorative expression, which rinsed and repeated as necessary, will become the norm and pass into common usage. Both left and right are bandying it about to disparage any opposition.

 

You mentioned the LBG lot and I have to say a 'woke' will probably say I'm possibly somewhat homophobic. I don't want to know and I don't care who they sleep with, it's none of my business. And I can hardly be phobic if I'm not aware of their peccadilloes and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

 

The antipathy to immigrants is growing among ordinary people of that there is no doubt. We can blame government, and it's easy to do, but the blame is not theirs alone. Every attempt to find a viable solution has been met with legal, moral, political and financial resistance. No-one has yet come up with a feasible plan.

 

Culture War or cross-cultural differences are something of a minefield to define. There are signs of a rise among the Tories towards the right, there are signs among the hoi polloi of opposition and a step to the left. I have no suggestions for slowing the polarisation.

 

Sunak is going to lose the election unless he can find the populist sweet spot. HS2 and immigration are two strings to his bow, the money used for good deeds elsewhere not so much.

Labour desperately needs a stronger leader, or Starmer to step up if they are to maintain their lead.

 

It's not 'blaming hard working people', it's an established economic fact, wage rises are a cause of inflation. Whether they are deserved or not is irrelevant. Note; A cause, not THE cause.

 

I'm not aware of immigrants being blamed for government failures, unless it's to stop them, but what is the cause of the immigration problem if it's not immigrants? The meteoric rise across the channel is largely a Brexit bonus, and who's to blame for that? It's also of note that at the start of Blair's premiership immigration immediately rose over 200% 

In 2022 1.6 million souls flowed in, about a third left. This leaves a net increase amounting to 1% of the UK population – in a year! Cleary a rate that is not sustainable. It would be naïve to deny such a rate of increase is not going to put a strain on resources and infrastructure. Half a million, mainly single men, plus those here who also need homes is a demand not easily met.

 

Should we start to think, as we should, about why people undertake such an arduous trek  then true enough that is a government issue. However not really an issue the UK government alone can solve.

 

We can all tut tut and wring our hands at their plight but it does not hide the fact illegal immigrants are a problem we need to deal with, harsh but true. 

Braverman has recently come under some criticism for wanting to reclassify immigration applicant status. Quite frankly I have some sympathy for her view. Refugees from war etc., fine, but I would look sideways, long and hard at the myriad of fit, single young men claiming asylum.

 

 

[Brew 5,419]

On 10/6/2023 at 9:57 AM, DJ360 said:

I'm not aware of any  individual consequences for not using the recycling containers provided. She's the only one in our street to ignore the recycling and although I've not done a scientific survey, she could well be the only one on this development of several hundred dwellings.

What is the option if you don't? Council collection can, and do, refuse to collect for wrong items, they even refuse collection if the bin lid is not completely closed. For larger items?  Use non-registered 'man with a van'? Fly tip?

Follow the rules or there could be consequences, I'm surprised you don't see that. However...

 

A long piece on recycling Col that is preaching to the converted, and again entirely misses the point.

The council and its, at times, somewhat short sighted policies is simply an example of non-system thinking. 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

On 10/7/2023 at 1:05 PM, Brew said:

What is the option if you don't? Council collection can, and do, refuse to collect for wrong items, they even refuse collection if the bin lid is not completely closed. For larger items?  Use non-registered 'man with a van'? Fly tip?

Follow the rules or there could be consequences, I'm surprised you don't see that. However...

 

Maybe 'crossed purposes' here Jim.  She DOES use her main wheeliebin, it's just that she chucks everything in and it's usually full again a  day or so after emptying. She seems to make no attempt to even flatten boxes etc. It gets emptied.

She recently put some large cardboard boxes at the side of her bin, but failed to separate them from the associated polythene bags and polystyrene.  I heard one of the 'bin men' saying 'leave that, it's full of polystyrene'.  I reckon if she'd put the polythene and polystyrene in in the main bin and left the cardboard next to it, they'd have taken it. It's odd. She's an intelligent and hard working woman.. not some 'chav'.

 

One woman had her empty dog food cans refused because they still contained a lot of food.  She muttered a lot about being made to clean them before putting in the waste, but complied. Another neighbour had her green bin refused for collection because it weighed a ton, being mostly full of soil, rather than weeds.  I've long jested with her that rather than weeding her borders, she seems to be slowly digging a moat.. she also complied.

 

Larger items. It's very simple. Take them to the recycling depot yourself, or pay a small fee to have them removed.  If you 'fly tip' them you are breaking the law and the vast majority round here wouldn't dream of it., there can and often will be consequences in the form of fines, or even imprisonment. I can only assume the councils have calculated that their present system works most cost effectively, in that clearing up after the odd unidentified 'fly tipper', costs less than running a free  universal bulky rubbish collection on demand.

There's a more general issue here around personal responsibility, v the oft expressed vague contention that 'they' (often the council..or maybe just a vague reference to 'authority'), 'should do summat abaht it!'

 

Their 'system' also integrates with wider systems, where there are, say, 'regional' operators of waste food digester plants, who themselves integrate with wider energy production systems, plastic and metal recyclers who integrate with manufacturing industry systems, green waste recyclers who integrate with agriculture, 'aggregate' recyclers who integrate with construction..etc... You seem to describe 'council' recycling as a 'closed' system with a careless 'spillover' into the wider 'system'. I reckon it's far more integrated into wider systems than you acknowledge.

 

[DJ360 6,730]

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

It's a sad fact but we have to accept 'woke' has been utterly transmogrified by those who neither know nor care about its origins.

 

Many in the general population have picked the word up and bandy it around pretty much indiscriminately as a pejorative against anything they disapprove of, from perceived 'political correctness', through to anything remotely to the left of the current pretty right of centre and dominant 'consensus'.

However, there are many others, especially in the political sphere, who know EXACTLY, what they are doing when they use 'woke', as a 'dog whistle' and basically a 'cheap shot', to try to draw otherwise sensible people into supporting their lunacy.

 

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

It is now a blanket term for excessive political correctness, an extremist interpretation used by zealots.

 

It's way beyond that, as exemplified by the Donelan woman I mentioned.  She is denying the reality that human sexuality, whilst overwhelmingly binary, also has many 'shades' and this is normal. Homosexuality, transvestism, gender 'dysphoria', etc., etc., etc.. have existed since the dawn of history. Whether some people like that fact is entirely another matter. None of this is new, and as science goes further towards understanding what and why, that woman, masquerading as someone interested in science, is actually displaying her interest in oppression and control, by trying to get scientists to operate under her version of 'the truth'.

Incidentally, a quick scan of her 'Wikipedia' page, reveals someone who, in my view, is an almost entirely opportunist 'career' politician, who will say anything to gain access to power. She's flopped from Labour to Conservative and from Remainer to Brexiteer. Clearly a woman of conviction... not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Donelan

 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

You mentioned the LBG lot and I have to say a 'woke' will probably say I'm possibly somewhat homophobic. I don't want to know and I don't care who they sleep with, it's none of my business. And I can hardly be phobic if I'm not aware of their peccadilloes and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

 

I don't see you as 'homophobic', because in your own words you neither know nor care 'who they sleep with'.  My only observation would be that the whole issue surrounding any 'non-binary' presentation of human sexuality, gender, gender identity etc., etc., is far more complex than just 'who they sleep with'. Not sure I'd use the term 'pecadillos' though.

 

Briefly, and I'm no expert... There are those who are genuinely born 'hermaphrodite'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism

 

There are many more who experience 'Gender Dysphoria' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

 

Also those who develop as 'Gay', or 'Lesbian'.

 

There are numerous male transvestites who are also happily married in heterosexual relationships. One prominent example being Grayson Perry.

 

Add in the other shades, such as 'pan sexual', 'bi-sexual' etc., and you see a complex picture.

 

However, the main point often missed, by 'Phobics', in my view is that it's pretty obvious that this is rarely, if ever, a 'choice'. If it were, those who suffer under extreme religious or political regimes which attempt to 'ban' homosexuality and other sexual 'variations' would 'choose' differently.. yet they don't.

 

One way I express my understanding of this whole thing is by using the word 'Normal', in the Statistical sense, as in 'relating to 'The Norm''.  In this case it is statistically 'Normal' for humans to exhibit either clearly male, or clearly female sexual 'proclivities'.  However, it is also 'Normal', for there to be a proportion of the human population whose 'proclivities' differ. ( See 'Normal Distribution'  )

 

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

The antipathy to immigrants is growing among ordinary people of that there is no doubt.

 

Agreed.

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

We can blame government, and it's easy to do, but the blame is not theirs alone.

 

Debateable at least... The present Govt. still fails to acknowledge the reality of the environmental and political pressures which are driving migration Worldwide. I see no evidence that they are seriously engaging with the rest of the World to try to identify ways to both mitigate migratory pressure, or to deal with migrants more fairly.

 

Instead, they prefer to 'talk up' the 'economic migrant' meme and try to present the UK as somehow 'under seige', or even 'invasion'.

 

I'm not for one minute denying that we have a real migration issue to deal with.  I just don't approve of the present Govt's abject failure to 'grip' the issue in a fair and legal way, or of the way in which they are 'weaponising' immigration fears in a desperate bid to garner electoral support.

 

 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

Culture War or cross-cultural differences are something of a minefield to define. There are signs of a rise among the Tories towards the right, there are signs among the hoi polloi of opposition and a step to the left. I have no suggestions for slowing the polarisation.

 

IMHO, there are far more than 'signs' that the traditional Tory Party is moving to the right.  It's already happened, and is increasing. Witness the utterings of Donelan and Sunak at conference, plus their continuing attacks on UK human rights.

 

I do not see anything similar on the 'established' left.  In fact most commentators see Labour under Starmer moving ever further to the right to appeal to old style Tory voters.

 

I'd go further though.  The biggest threat to World Peace at present is the rise of the Far Right. Here, I'm defining the 'Far Right' as both ideological, AND simply practical.

 

For e.g.  The Far Right in the USA dominates the thinking and the actions of the Republican Party, to the extent that Trump seemingly still has a chance of re-election.. or if not him, someone potentially worse..as in, equally bigoted, but less stupid.

Right wing Govt's currently dominate Hungary, India, Italy, Turkey, Israel, Iran (along with most Islamic states) etc.. In fact I'm struggling to think of a major left wing Govt. on the planet at present.  Please don't quote China or Korea at me as neither are Democratic and are essentially right wing authoritarian dictatorships or oligarchies masquerading as 'Socialist'.

 

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

Sunak is going to lose the election unless he can find the populist sweet spot. HS2 and immigration are two strings to his bow, the money used for good deeds elsewhere not so much.

Labour desperately needs a stronger leader, or Starmer to step up if they are to maintain their lead.

 

Sunak is going to lose the election whatever he does.  His policies and utterings smack increasingly of desperation and when figures such as major business leaders, the former Governor or the Bank of England and even some of the traditionslly Right Wing press start to call him out.. he and his whole sorry mess of a party are done for.

I'm no Starmer fan, but I think he's playing a clever game by not allowing a hint of the 'Corbynist' left to give the Tories any 'ammo', whilst also refusing to commit to policies which could be seized upon as 'same old Labour tax and spend'. (Even though that has never actually been true).

 

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

It's not 'blaming hard working people', it's an established economic fact, wage rises are a cause of inflation. Whether they are deserved or not is irrelevant. Note; A cause, not THE cause.

 

Chicken and Egg.. The current inflation was sparked by supply side issues around energy and food imports, exacerbated by both Ukraine AND Covid, but also by rampant Govt spending and borrowing, finally topped off by Truss's disastrous tenure. Those are your causes... Increased wage demands are a natural response.

 

Now the question becomes.. 'how do you curtail inflation?' and the orthodoxy says that wages must be controlled. and yet wages are only a part of a feedback loop which includes costs, profits, borrowing and interest.  So why is it that wages are always chosen as the point where the 'cycle' should be broken?  Could it by chance have anything to do with the fact that interest rates , especially on 'Gilts','Bonds' etc... predominantly benefit those who already have, or control wealth? Same with prices.  Everybody in the supply chain, from Primary Producers through to retailers, gets to protect their position (and profits) by increasing their prices..  

And so..as ever.. those who have no financial 'power', are made to suffer... and often to protect those who really caused the inflation in the first place. What about controlling borrowing.. interest rates.. and most of all prices?

 

 

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

Should we start to think, as we should, about why people undertake such an arduous trek  then true enough that is a government issue. However not really an issue the UK government alone can solve.

 

Which is part of my point.  The present lot just appeal to the xenophobic and 'Little Englander' mentality without seriously examining the drivers of migration of seeking to develop and internationally agreed strategies.

 

On 10/6/2023 at 7:04 PM, Brew said:

Braverman has recently come under some criticism for wanting to reclassify immigration applicant status. Quite frankly I have some sympathy for her view.

 

 

Sorry, but for me, Braverman 'blew it', when she first started ranting about 'woke' etc., in Parliament and though she's made efforts to 'modify' her language, she still comes across as a political 'yard dog'.  Nothing she now says has any credibility with me and her response only yesterday around Govt. failure, even with cross party support, to set up some form of posthumous award for Emergency Service workers killed in the line of duty, was flippant and crass, further confirming my view.

[Brew 5,419]

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

he's flopped from Labour to Conservative and from Remainer to Brexiteer. Clearly a woman of conviction... not.

Did I miss something? She's been a member of the Tory party from the age of thirteen and as far as I know has never been a Labour supporter.

 

She opposed Brexit but has accepted the will of the people,  as she should.

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

She is denying the reality that human sexuality

On this she has and, is entitled to, her views. Some see many nuances and variations, others take a more pragmatic view and see things in black and white.

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Incidentally, a quick scan of her 'Wikipedia' page, reveals someone who, in my view, is an almost entirely opportunist 'career' politician, who will say anything to gain access to power

 

Following your lead I looked at the website. Are we looking at the same site? It's the website of a serving politician and I expected to see nothing untoward - I was not disappointed and saw nothing unseemly or overtly conspiratorial. Care to expand?

--------------

I've used the peccadilloes from a  time when it was a sin, but you're right, I should probably stop.

--------------

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Right wing Govt's currently dominate Hungary, India, Italy, Turkey, Israel, Iran (along with most Islamic states) etc.. In fact I'm struggling to think of a major left wing Govt. on the planet at present.  Please don't quote China or Korea at me as neither are Democratic

 

Not sure I agree Islamic states are far right. Nor do I necessarily agree religious fundamentalism is politics as we know it. 

Nor do I understand why extreme left governments have a need for an element of democracy to qualify as socialist.

China and Korea have their interpretation of socialism just as we have a version of democracy. Russia, Cuba and Burma are also known to have been hard left with no trace of democracy, there are others.

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm no Starmer fan, but I think he's playing a clever game by not allowing a hint of the 'Corbynist' left to give the Tories any 'ammo', whilst also refusing to commit to policies which could be seized upon as 'same old Labour tax and spend

Playing clever? Hardly, he's the same old wishy washy sit on the fence leader he was through the pandemic. Listening to him at conference and it's more of the same sad rhetoric, platitudes and ill thought out promises.

Crime down by a third? Shouldn't be difficult, It's actually been declining since it peaked in 1995. To be fair though it's hard to attribute the fall to any particular cause.

Bring back minimum wage?.. Does he mean scrap the Tory 'Living Wage' Which is a higher rate than the old Labour minimum?

His jibes at Sunak were weak, spurious insults against a man who's hardly had enough time to warm his seat.

Some of his speech (the lake district lady story), I simply don't believe, it's typical copy writer heart string pap.

Tales of his semi-detached home does not make him more cuddly, he's aiming in the wrong direction. The days of "I'm working class and proud of it" are gone.

At least he recognises the Labour climate plans were unrealistic pie in the sky and drastically downsized the proposed investment. The rumour is Reeves wants to scrap it altogether.

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The current inflation was sparked by supply side issues around energy and food imports, exacerbated by both Ukraine AND Covid

 

I did say wage rises are A cause not the sole cause. As for which leads, price rise or wage rise is open to argument.

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

What about controlling borrowing.. interest rates.. and most of all prices?

That's the old, and outlawed, RPM. Retail Price Maintenance and it was made illegal for very good reasons. 

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

seeking to develop and internationally agreed strategies.

 We can't blame anyone for not having policies or strategies. National interest will never  come second to the needs of others in some countries' 

Taken as a whole the UK is the fourth largest aid contributor in the world, break down the EU and we are third. As a country we punch way above our weight on foreign aid.

India  has just made a landing on the moon for approximately $100 million. The UK gave them just over a third of the money 2022and  £2.6 billion in under five years (16/21) and it's proposed to increase by 57M next year, money to the 10th largest economy in the world...

 Perhaps we should look a little closer at where and who we support, and what those receiving aid spend it on...

The bulk of our foreign aid money goes to Africa and Asia where the overwhelming number of illegals come from.

I would suggest that as a starting point.

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

to set up some form of posthumous award for Emergency Service workers killed in the line of duty, was flippant and crass, further confirming my view.

 

Can't say I disagree, it's suck-up to the Nth degree, but I maintain the idea of segregation of refugees from economic migrants is a valid point.

 

It's been several years now since the migration began yet still the UK has not come up with a feasible plan - nor has anyone else!

[Oztalgian 3,296]

19 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm struggling to think of a major left wing Govt. on the planet at present. 

Hey DJ360! What about Australia? we have a distinctly "left leaning" Labor government and in only one of our states is there a Conservative/Liberal government in power.  I'll admit they are not extreme lefties but as I said left leaning,

or perhaps we are not considered major enough.

19 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Everybody in the supply chain, from Primary Producers through to retailers, gets to protect their position (and profits) by increasing their prices

Don't know about the UK but here primary producers are under the thumb of the major supermarket duopoly and the international food brands and are certainly not able to raise their prices at will. In fact their prices are being depressed to the point that many are leaving the land because the prices they get for their produce do not cover the cost of production. The duopoly have made massive increases in prices and hence profits. They along with obscene bank profits and the Reserve Bank incompetent handling of interest rates are the significant factors fuelling inflation here.

 

Postscript - Several apple growers in the Hills behind Adelaide have today announced they are leaving the industry as they are not receiving enough for their products as prices are being held down by the supermarkets.

[Brew 5,419]

2 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Everybody in the supply chain, from Primary Producers through to retailers, gets to protect their position (and profits) by increasing their prices

 

I see nothing amiss with that. Any business will increase their prices inline with increased costs to themselves, they'd go bust if they didn't

 

Col advocated control of prices earlier; how? Short of nationalisation or a return to the old 'top-down' Resale Price Maintenance Act (a legally enforceable act where manufacturers set the price), (it ended in 1964 to be replaced with the Resale Price Act) - it can't be done

 

Abolishing the RPM effectively ended price fixing by suppliers,  opened the market to competition, and thus forced prices down.  Strangely though books were allowed to keep it, I don't know if they still are...

 

There is a famous Tesco sign against RPM breaking down the selling price of a Bex Bissel carpet cleaner and shows how much profit they make per machine, how much they wanted to sell it for and how big the saving to the customer.

 

The present system is not perfect but we no longer have big companies creating cartels or raising barriers to entry from those wishing to enter the market.

 

Supermarkets led the charge to end RPM but now their buying power has grown to the point where they are dictating prices to growers etc. much like Aussie apple growers.

[DJ360 6,730]

15 hours ago, Brew said:

Did I miss something? She's been a member of the Tory party from the age of thirteen and as far as I know has never been a Labour supporter.

 

Correct.  Sorry, I misread her Wikipedia entry.  That said, I find it slightly disturbing that she apparently expressed an interest in being a politician from the age of six.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

On this she has and, is entitled to, her views. Some see many nuances and variations, others take a more pragmatic view and see things in black and white.

 

'Seeing things in Black and White', is simply a denial of reality. As I said above, human sexuality is overwhelmingly binary, but has always included homosexual, bi-sexual and other 'non binary' elements. That much is indisputable.

 

Clearly, she is entitled to live and express her own sexuality according to her own proclivities and beliefs. That's not what I meant, or what I said. 

She has accused the general scientific community and 'university bureaucrats' of 'denying biology'. I am convinced that the weight of evidence proves that she is the one 'denying biology', as well as the associated psychology etc.. of human sexuality. And in line with the rest of the far right, she is invoking the blanket and discredited dog whistle term 'woke' to both discredit Science, and to appeal to the hard of thinking for support.

 

A reminder of what she claims is her 'mission' with regard to Science:

 

On 10/5/2023 at 1:09 PM, DJ360 said:

“kicking woke ideology out of science”, thereby “safeguarding scientific research from the denial of biology and the steady creep of political correctness”.

 

If you don't see that as an attempt to impose a reactionary and UNSCIENTIFIC ideology onto the Scientific community, I find that in itself worrying.  The practical expression of her views would likely play out as her directing research funding on the basis of her own 'morality' and 'ideology', rather than on any basis of scientific need, or even going so far as to sanction particular institutions.

 

Read about the response from the Scientific Community here:

 

https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-politics-2023-10-scientists-angry-about-donelan-s-wokeism-in-science-claims/

 

From which:

Quote

 

Donelan ‘far from depoliticising science’

Donelan promised to “depoliticise” science and launched a review that will investigate the use of sex and gender questions in scientific research and statistics, including public bodies.

But the letter says: “Far from depoliticising science, this policy appears to be driven by ideology. The government is attempting to dictate how questions of sex and gender are addressed by academics.”

 

 

And:

 

Quote

 

“The abuse of ‘biology’ in the name of oppression has a long and very dark history, and what we are seeing is a direct continuation of that legacy.

“Discredited reductive and over-simplified ‘biological’ models have been actively used to justify discrimination and human rights abuses, and this pseudoscience has no place in modern scientific inquiry or society.

 

 

I am entirely with the scientific community on this.

 

16 hours ago, Brew said:

Following your lead I looked at the website. Are we looking at the same site? It's the website of a serving politician and I expected to see nothing untoward - I was not disappointed and saw nothing unseemly or overtly conspiratorial. Care to expand?

 

Did you look at her own website, or her 'Wiki' entry.  I looked at the latter and concluded that her political allegiances and views are, at best, confused, and at worst, opportunistic.

 

16 hours ago, Brew said:

Not sure I agree Islamic states are far right. Nor do I necessarily agree religious fundamentalism is politics as we know it. 

Nor do I understand why extreme left governments have a need for an element of democracy to qualify as socialist.

China and Korea have their interpretation of socialism just as we have a version of democracy. Russia, Cuba and Burma are also known to have been hard left with no trace of democracy, there are others.

 

 

We've been here before. As far as I'm concerned it matters little whether a regime, or party, describes itself as 'Socialist' or 'Communist', 'National', 'Islamic', 'Christian' or whatever..  What actually defines it is the way it treats people.

 

Quote

 

Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, refers to a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.^[1] The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.

Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.^[2]

Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions.^[3]

 

 

The above from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

 

It's not difficult to identify the characteristics outlined above, in the countries I mentioned previously as being effectively far right.  Authoritarianism, Imposed Religion, Chauvinism, Racism, Political Violence, the suppression of all dissent etc.. etc.. are seen in Iran, in China, in Russia etc., and are accompanied by the denial of anything approaching Democracy.

Elements of the above are bubbling under in the present Tory Party, as demonstrated by Donelan and others.

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

That's the old, and outlawed, RPM. Retail Price Maintenance and it was made illegal for very good reasons. 

 

That's not what I'm suggesting.  In my understanding RPM was mostly about manufacturers and re-sellers agreeing to keep prices up. I'm saying that it wouldn't be difficult to stop the likes of Fuel, Energy, Food etc.. suppliers from clearly profiteering AND in the process contributing to inflation.

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

We can't blame anyone for not having policies or strategies. National interest will never  come second to the needs of others in some countries' 

 

Of course we can.  That's what they are elected to do.  My point is that cooperation with other developed countries to alleviate migratory pressure, defeat 'traffickers' etc.,etc. is in the National as well as the International interest, and that reducing the whole immigration issue to a 'Little England' problem, is both fundamentally xenophobic, but also a 'cop out' for Govt., and a 'Dog Whistle' electoral tactic.

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

Taken as a whole the UK is the fourth largest aid contributor in the world, break down the EU and we are third. As a country we punch way above our weight on foreign aid.

India  has just made a landing on the moon for approximately $100 million. The UK gave them just over a third of the money 2022and  £2.6 billion in under five years (16/21) and it's proposed to increase by 57M next year, money to the 10th largest economy in the world...

 Perhaps we should look a little closer at where and who we support, and what those receiving aid spend it on...

The bulk of our foreign aid money goes to Africa and Asia where the overwhelming number of illegals come from.

I would suggest that as a starting point.

 

I'd agree to some extent, but until we can properly disentangle 'aid', from covert support for business, the 'propping up' of 'approved' regimes, etc..etc.. there's no obvious solution.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

I should add that I don't see 'Aid' as the only, or even the major international strategy required.  What's needed is a counter to the economic and therefore political influence of China, Russia and religious extremism in sub Saharan Africa and elsewhere.  We took our eyes off the ball there, hence the current anti-French, anti Western and pro Russian sentiments which are now so prevalent.

[Brew 5,419]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I find it slightly disturbing that she apparently expressed an interest in being a politician from the age of six.

 

Why so? At that sort of age I wanted to be either a spaceman, a scientist or a bus driver, though I only actually knew what a bus driver did.

And yes I read both the Wiki and her own website. Opportunist? or ambitious?

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I am convinced that the weight of evidence proves that she is the one 'denying biology',

 

Have you read her speech? I came away with a somewhat different view. Her use of the word 'woke' is inappropriate to purists, but as we both agree the word is used by various factions for different reasons and means different things. 

 

Quote:

" So today conference, I am writing a review into the use of sex and gender questions in scientific research and statistics, including in public bodies. We will produce robust guidance within six months [the review will be] conducted by Professor Alice Sullivan, of UCL who will report to my department and also to Cabinet Office".

and, "I think it matters when scientists are told by university bureaucrats that they cannot ask legitimate research questions about biological sex".

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

If you don't see that as an attempt to impose a reactionary and UNSCIENTIFIC ideology onto the Scientific community, I find that in itself worrying.

 

Sorry but I don't, I suggest initiating a full blown review by a qualified academic does not indicate a denial or indeed a closed mind.

Prof Sullivan has written on  and is an authority on Sex and Gender Identity, so not the one to choose if you're trying to deny it.

Your quote:
 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Donelan promised to “depoliticise” science and launched a review that will investigate the use of sex and gender questions in scientific research and statistics, including public bodies.

 

The author, Rachel Magee is seemingly a professional critic and here is echoing the words of  Peter Kyle, Labour shadow secretary.

It's from someone who opposes Donelan.  Written with a heavy hint of disbelief in her promise, it's someone's views, their interpterion of her speech, and  does not reflect what she actually said. Launching a review is a good way towards proving them wrong.

 

Your proposition:

"The practical expression of her views would likely play out as her directing research funding on the basis of her own 'morality' and 'ideology', rather than on any basis of scientific need, or even going so far as to sanction particular institutions".

The open letter you quote is little more than bleating about LGQ being excluded, yet nothing in her speech even hinted at it. 

There was nothing that singled out any group or minority or any hint of ideology that I could see. It's purely conjecture, and not something I can agree with.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

We've been here before. As far as I'm concerned it matters little whether a regime, or party, describes itself as 'Socialist' or 'Communist', 'National', 'Islamic', 'Christian' or whatever..  What actually defines it is the way it treats people.

 

I agree. however I was responding to your claim Islamic states are far right and for states to gain the title 'socialist', they need to be democratic. I don't believe either to be true. As for mistreatment The most famous for mistreatment of the people I can think of in modern times is Stalin and Pol Pot, both claim, and were, hard socialists. But I'll leave it there.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'd agree to some extent, but until we can properly disentangle 'aid', from covert support for business, the 'propping up' of 'approved' regimes, etc..etc.. there's no obvious solution

 

 It can't be done. Supporting businesses and infrastructure are the mainstay of building an economy and raising living standards.

I don't know what the checks and balances are for foreign aid, but I wish it were better. From a distance it looks like we just hand over documents of credit to some governments or other and they spend it how they like. If we didn't and tried to have a say, some would accuse us of trying to take control and imperialism. It's a Gordian knot.

In my view raising living standard helps avoid and negate the attraction of extremism. When they have food and shelter people tend to stay put and build their own future. 

When people are desperate they will turn towards anything that offers even a faint glimmer of hope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Have you read her speech? I came away with a somewhat different view. Her use of the word 'woke' is inappropriate to purists, but as we both agree the word is used by various factions for different reasons and means different things. 

 

I heard it on TV.

2 hours ago, Brew said:

"I think it matters when scientists are told by university bureaucrats that they cannot ask legitimate research questions about biological sex".

 

What does that actually mean? Where is the evidence?

 

The bottom line here IMHO, is that she started out by stating that she/they are:

 

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

“kicking woke ideology out of science”, thereby “safeguarding scientific research from the denial of biology and the steady creep of political correctness”.

 

That, to me, is a very clear statement that in her/their view, 'woke ideology' (a vague and very unscientific term), and the 'steady creep of political correctness' (again, a very vague, non specific and essentially political/ideological concept) are ALREADY endemic within the scientific communty.

In other words.. she has already made up her mind that these 'things' exist, are active within science, and constitute a problem.  That is one helluvalot of assumptions and conclusions, almost exclusively based on her personal views. She did not bring a single FACT to the table.

 

So, what will be the terms of reference of her 'Enquiry'?  Who will design it and what assumptions will underpin it?  I think we already have an idea..

 

Eitherway, the damage is already done in that Donelan has had her chance to further spread the 'Myth of Woke' and get more of the 'hard of thinking' frothing....

 'Prof' Sullivan will run her enquiry.. (if the Tories stay in power long enough) I very much doubt that a proper enquiry will confirm anything like the level of 'Woke ideology' etc. that Donelan claims.  More likely it will prove her wrong and be quietly shelved..as ever when proper examination fails to fit with Govt. policy or rhetoric.

[Brew 5,419]

20 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

“kicking woke ideology out of science”, thereby “safeguarding scientific research from the denial of biology and the steady creep of political correctness”.

 

 

Your surprising use of the rather silly she/herthey/their personal pronouns is proof beyond belief she is right about the steady creep of political correctness.

 

29 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

3 hours ago, Brew said:

"I think it matters when scientists are told by university bureaucrats that they cannot ask legitimate research questions about biological sex".

 

What does that actually mean? Where is the evidence?

 Evidence:

"We want to get away from this dreadful political correctness in medical education that exists now".

Professor Sikora was appointed dean elect of Britain's first private medical school at Buckingham University. 

 

Civitas:

"The reports also set out policy recommendations for strengthening academic freedom. A 2020 report by Civitas presented analysis of the policies and actions of 137 universities in the UK. It concluded that 48 of them (35 per cent) were performing badly on free speech, and called for government action on the issue".

 

Kings College:

students being unable to express their views, visiting speakers being “no-platformed”, and staff feeling like they have limitations on their academic freedom (Simpson and Kaufmann 2019)

 

The Independent was raising the issue as far back as 2015.

 

There's more of the same, including evidence from Germany: "A climate of political correctness in universities and colleges is stifling open debate, according to lecturers in Germany". And others on the Continent.

 

There is plenty of evidence that PC is interfering with freedom of expression.

 

I've spent an hour looking online and the evidence is overwhelming. Even Peter Tatchell has been shunned by Fran Cowling, SU LBG rep, who claims he is racist and transphobic

 

--

Assumptions? Would you not agree there are lots of assumptions in your post? Is not casting doubt on the outcome of the review a massive assumption in itself?

 

Regardless of the outcome I think some are crying wolf

 

I'll make an assumption and a prediction of my own. Those opposing this are the vociferous minority who grow ever more extreme driving PC in both thought and language.

If ever the review is published we can expect both  outcry, praise and endless calls of betrayal.

 

Sadly we are not likely to be vindicated either way, as you point out it's unlikely SHE will be in the next government.

[Oztalgian 3,296]

Most states have today finished voting in a referendum which asks this question - "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

There was a box on the ballot paper where you are required to write "Yes" in support of the alteration and "No" if you are against it.

It looks like overall the country has voted an emphatic No and four of the six states have also voted no, one state is too close to call and in WA the polls are still open, therefore the referendum has been lost.

There are many reasons for the no vote but the main one is there was not bipartisan support for the yes case. the Labor side of politics were for the Yes case whilst the Conservative side supported the No case.

It will be interesting to see what happens now especially in our state where the labor state parliament have voted for a "state voice" yet in the referendum vote 60+% of the people have voted no.

[DJ360 6,730]

16 hours ago, Brew said:

Your surprising use of the rather silly she/herthey/their personal pronouns is proof beyond belief she is right about the steady creep of political correctness.

 

A surprising red herring from you Jim!  I did not use 'she/herthey/their'. I used 'she/they'  simply to indicate that she said both that 'she' (I.E herself)and 'they' (I.E. The Tory Party) are 'kicking out Woke'.  etc..

You are seeking 'political correctness' in my writing where it doesn't exist.

 

16 hours ago, Brew said:

"We want to get away from this dreadful political correctness in medical education that exists now".

Professor Sikora was appointed dean elect of Britain's first private medical school at Buckingham University.

 

Interesting that you should single out Buckingham University. It is a very small and only moderately successful Uni, often regarded as a bit of a joke in wider academic circles.. It was created as Britain's first 'Private' uni in 1973 largely as a result of input from Margaret Thatcher and a couple of Far Right Free Marketeers from the Institute of Economic Affairs, the well known, but highly secretive Right Wing Think Tank which describes itself as an 'Educational Charity', but is actually a lobby group for corporate interests, especially in Oil, Tobacco etc, and the wider 'cause' of neoliberal and neocon sympathies.

 

As for Professor Sikora..

 

From Wikipedia:

Quote

 

"Alternative" medicine

The university ran a diploma course in "integrated medicine" that was later withdrawn under pressure from David Colquhoun,^[30] a campaigner against pseudoscience and alternative medicine. The Dean of the School, Karol Sikora, was a Foundation Fellow of Prince Charles's now-defunct alternative medicine lobby group, The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health,^[31] and is Chair of the Faculty of Integrated Medicine, which is unaffiliated with any university but also includes Rosy Daniel and Mark Atkinson, who co-ordinated Buckingham's "integrated medicine" course.^[30] Daniel has been criticised by David Colquhoun for breaches of the Cancer Act 1939, regarding claims she made for Carctol, a herbal dietary supplement with no utility in treating cancer.^[30] Andrew Miles is on the scientific council of the College of Medicine^[32] an alternative medicine lobby group linked to the then Prince of Wales.^[33] Sikora is also a "professional member" of this organisation.^[34] The degree was stripped off validation by the University of Buckingham prior to the first graduation.^[35]

 

 

Civitas:

 

16 hours ago, Brew said:

A 2020 report by Civitas presented analysis of the policies and actions of 137 universities in the UK. It concluded that 48 of them (35 per cent) were performing badly on free speech, and called for government action on the issue".

 

And of course the above all hinges upon one's own.. and Civitas' definition of 'Free Speech'.

 

Civitas presents itself as a rather more 'Balanced' organisation than the IEA, but is still not without Far Right influence, which becomes increasingly apparent as you explore the careers and writings of its numerous 'officers' and 'associates'.

 

Quote

Before founding Civitas in 2000, Dr David Green had been at the Institute of Economic Affairs since 1984,

 

The present CEO of Civitas is a long term Tory Party member and Brexiteer.

 

David Conway..a 'visiting' professor seems to be a devout adherent of 'Classical Liberalism', whose current expression most closely translates as 'Neo-Liberalism'. I.E. Anti-welfare, anti public services, etc..etc..

 

Etc.. etc..

 

Fair enough, all of the above have a right to their views..but it's somewhat disingenuous of 'Civitas' to present itself as in any sense politically 'neutral'. It isn't. And Civitas was prominent in demanding Govt. action over alleged freedom of Speech violations. (According to it's own criteria)

 

However, I wouldn't deny that there are elements at both extremes of the political spectrum who are effectively engaged in a 'shouting war' and that this expresses itself in some rather distasteful shenannigans at some Unis and other institutions.

 

My personal view on this would have to come down to my assessment of an individual speaker's 'acceptability' and I say that on the basis that 'Free Speech' is not a universal right.  We have laws in this country against 'hate speech' etc.  I would also deny the 'right' of any historical revisionist 'Holocaust Denier' etc.  I do acknowledge that it's a 'knotty' issue, but you recently upheld the 'right' of Government to 'take down' online information based on its own idea of acceptability.

 

Quote

Regarless of the outcome..I think some are crying wolf..

 

Indeed.. and chief among them is Donelan herself. You must surely see that the whole tone of her speech was designed to hang a 'Culture War', 'anti Woke' electoral message onto a relatively minor issue?

 

So.. coming back full circle to the rantings of Donelan..  Maybe if she had noted the examples of 'no platforming' etc.. at some institutions, and undertaken to set up an enquiry.. then her rantings might have passed with little comment.

 

As it was however, she started from the assumption that the issue was rife, was down to 'Woke' and represented a 'threat'.  She took an overtly politically biased view and used that to define the 'problem'.  Even worse, she 'presumed' the right to both define AND represent the interests of the scientific community. That's where she lost me, and many others.

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

2 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Most states have today finished voting in a referendum which asks this question - "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

 

Oz, I wouldn't be so presumptious as to claim any understanding of the subtleties of Australian politics, but what you seem to be describing is a deep polarisation of opinion within the electorate, being highlighted by a poorly designed referendum question, which gives insufficient detail of the proposal or its implementation, where a simple 'yes or no' answer will inevitably lead to a continuation, or even deepening of the rift, rather than a mutually agreed resolution.

 

Sounds very familiar from here....

[Brew 5,419]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

'. I used 'she/they'  simply to indicate that she said both that 'she' (I.E herself)and 'they

An unusual way of writing but I accept I misunderstood the meaning. however I did not seek PC in your post, it's simply how it came across to me.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It is a very small and only moderately successful Uni, often regarded as a bit of a joke in wider academic circles.

That seems a bit disparaging, any evidence?

 

It is, despite it's size a fully accredited university and a Professor, an acknowledged world authority  in his field,  tory supporter or not, is in a far better position than most to judge the depth and influence of PC in academia. Considering his field I'd say he has also an in-depth knowledge of scientific research.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

As for Professor Sikora.

???

 

Debunking the origins of organisations does not by any means make their viewpoints less valid.

I can't see any political advantage condemning restrictions to free expression. PC is even creating waves at the highest level of the Labour party.

Starmer has stated that "99.9% of women do not have a penis" and that "Labours offerings to trans people should not override women's"  The Scottish Labour Party takes a more radical view.

 

Donelan

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

You must surely see that the whole tone of her speech was designed to hang a 'Culture War', 'anti Woke' electoral message onto a relatively minor issue?

 And thereby hangs a tail. Define anti-Woke. We both know it means different things to different parts of the political spectrum and people in general.

Your interpretation is clearly different to hers.

I'm little surprised if not disturbed you consider the moral imperialism of PC  in university's and science  establishments as a minor issue.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

but you recently upheld the 'right' of Government to 'take down' online information based on its own idea of acceptability.

 

Not quite right, I defended the taking down of untruthful and inaccurate disinformation. You challenged me on who decided on the veracity  of such things and I replied experts backed by evidence.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

and undertaken to set up an enquiry.. then her rantings might have passed with little comment.

She has undertaken to order a review, and even appointed an independent to lead it.

 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

she started from the assumption that the issue was rife

Surely you're making the assumption it's not?

 

You did not  like the Buck's Uni so i looked further afield.

I found what I consider to be enough of a  problem in the circumstances she describes to qualify as rife - even though she did not actually say that.

 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Even worse, she 'presumed' the right to both define AND represent the interests of the scientific community.

 

Can she speak as the representative of the scientific community? As the minister if she can't, who can?

 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

She took an overtly politically biased view and used that to define the 'problem'.

Criticism of the political bise in her speech? Surely it to be expected. It's a speech at conference and she's a leading politician in her party so of course it's overtly political. I can't imagine it being anything else.

 

 

[Brew 5,419]

I missed a link I  meant to include in the above.

 

University bans phrases such as 'mankind' and 'gentleman's agreement' in favour of gender-neutral terms | The Independent | The Independent

[Oztalgian 3,296]

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Oz, I wouldn't be so presumptious as to claim any understanding of the subtleties of Australian politics, but what you seem to be describing is a deep polarisation of opinion within the electorate, being highlighted by a poorly designed referendum question, which gives insufficient detail of the proposal or its implementation, where a simple 'yes or no' answer will inevitably lead to a continuation, or even deepening of the rift, rather than a mutually agreed resolution.

DJ360 Your summary hit the nail right on the head and perfectly sums it up.

Now the recriminations begin and I am sorry to say that what we are going to do next will be lost in the political point scoring.

A pox on both sides of politics for the way they have conducted this referendum. 

Overall around 60% of Australians voted No. the only jurisdiction that voted yes was the ACT and as it is not a state those votes only counted in the national numbers. To further add to the divisive nature of the referendum most inner-city areas voted Yes, outer urban areas voted No and country and regional areas voted an emphatic No

[DJ360 6,730]

23 hours ago, Brew said:

I missed a link I  meant to include in the above.

 

University bans phrases such as 'mankind' and 'gentleman's agreement' in favour of gender-neutral terms | The Independent | The Independent

 

I'm not in favour of that sort of PC.

However,  re: our current  discussion, we'll have to agree to differ, or 'suspend hostilities ' for a day or so. I'm in the middle of getting all prepped for my second knee op in the morning and I can't focus on much else ....

[Brew 5,419]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

However,  re: our current  discussion, we'll have to agree to differ, or 'suspend hostilities ' for a day or so. I'm in the middle of getting all prepped for my second knee op in the morning and I can't focus on much else ....

 

Col I wish you well mate and hope it all goes without a hitch...  

[DJ360 6,730]

Having a fair bit of time on my hands, I'm watching bits of the Covid enquiry via BBC News.

If nothing else, it is clearly demonstrating Johnson and Co's utterly inadequate response in early 2020. Johnson in particular is accused a being 'unable to lead' and also of essentially ignoring the pandemic. There was clearly no central direction and assorted people thrashing around cluelessly. 

There was NO PLAN.

This at a time when anyone with a functioning brain cell seeing the reports out of China and elsewhere could see that this was not like Bird Flu, SARS or other recent scares, but was sweeping like wildfire wherever it landed.

The govt.of the day failed us..big time, and the buck stops with Johnson.

Absolute dynamite stuff coming from Lee Cain and his exchanges with Cummings, indicating that both thought Johnson was indecisive at least, incompetent at worst and exhausting for all around him.

[Rob.L 1,090]

Hopefully, these reported comments from his meeting with Sunak will come back to haunt them.

“Why are we destroying the economy for people who will die anyway soon”
 

”Bed blockers”