Anything Political

[Brew 5,416]

23 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

So you don't see the Tory obsession with re-framing anything that is basically socially liberal, as either 'woke', 'socialist', or 'far left', as malice?

Again no... that's simply your usual extreme view and interpretation

[DJ360 6,729]

You won't be surprised  that I don't regard my centre left views as extreme, especially when compared to those of Truss, Rees-Mogg, Anderson, Braverman et.al.

 

But whatever...if theTory attitudes actions and pronouncements against institutions aren't malicious..how would you describe them?

[Brew 5,416]

6 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

But whatever...if theTory attitudes actions and pronouncements against institutions aren't malicious..how would you describe them?

I don't, they are what they are, part of the huffing and puffing of political rhetoric. Malicious intent I simply don't see.

[Brew 5,416]

The kings College article.

 

Turns out is not an unbiased report by a number of academics, it's another Byline times article written by Dr Corbet who is using his employers name to add credence.

 

The first half is nothing more than a reiteration of events during the Johnson era, something we are aware of have discussed at length so nothing new there. Though there is vague reference to Chris Mullin's novel "A Very British Coup" hoping those who read if will recognise political shenanigans at Westminster. It is also almost four years out date and as yet no coup has taken place.

 

The Russia report opens the door to conspiracy theories but is in fact little more than he said she said. 

 

Corbet them moves on to the government v civil service.  The has been various controversies between parliament and the government of the day as far back parliament itself.

Memorable ones recently are the Ponting affair and Sue Gray's appointment, 'twas ever thus and will always be so. 

[Brew 5,416]

The government attacking the BBC? Wilson did it, Blair did it, Johnson too, again nothing new there 

[Brew 5,416]

One of your quotes:

 

"The Tory party has no excuses. New Labour knew how they wanted Britain to work. The Conservatives have produced no such vision. Conservatism is in general allergic to big ideas and systemic thinking. Most Tory mps are happier moaning about institutions than altering them."

 

Apart from being years out of date it could just as easily apply to the present Starmer opposition. When they stop contemplating their collective navels will they ever tell us what they propose?

 

For all the information Rachel Reeves gave us today (Kuenssberg BBC this morning), she might as well have not bothered to turn up.

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,291]

Saw something on our local news tonight that made my blood boil and makes me want to take a piece of 4x2 to see if I can knock some sense and reality into our State Labor premier and his ministers in government.

Today the state government announced that bus and train travel would be free to all patrons going to the Adelaide oval for the AFL season that hold a match ticket. How much is this going to cost? I doubt if they will tell us.

This announcement comes on top of the government spending millions in sponsorship to get interstate AFL fans to come to South Australia for the "AFL Gather Round" when all AFL teams come to play here on one weekend. They have also spent millions on a V8 car race for hoons despite claiming green credentials. Millions more have been spent enticing highly paid world golfers to come here and play in a booze-fest golf tournament. The worst thing about all this is that the government is hiding this largesse from the taxpayer claiming "commercial confidence"

 

All this when since being elected almost exactly two years ago on a platform of ending ambulance ramping at our major hospital due to a shortage of bed availability. Since they were elected 91 South Australians have died waiting for an ambulance to get to them because they are tied up outside our hospitals. How many more ambulances and crews, hospital beds could these many millions have paid for. Since being elected ramping has gone from 2,711 hours in March 2022 to 3,690 in January 2024.

I have a simple message for our State Premier, Peter Malinauskas GET YOUR PRIORITES RIGHT 

I hope the bots that crawl over this site pick up this message and feed it back to the premier and his ministers. 

[Brew 5,416]

1 hour ago, Oztalgian said:

The worst thing about all this is that the government is hiding this largesse from the taxpayer claiming "commercial confidence"

This often means they're embarrassed at the cost overrun and would risk voter confidence if they made the figures public. There should be no such thing for any non national security organisation that spends tax payers money. 

Spending money to promote an event and encourage visitors is understandable. 

Is there an FOI in Australia?

 

Unless we're talking big numbers and it's to reduce the congestion they can cause, the logic of providing free transport just for ticket holders escapes me .

 

Posting on here Qz is fine and you make good points but i's doubtful if anyone over there will read it, have you sent the same to your local officials? You'll probably get the same smarmy reply I do but at least it salves my  conscience that I'm not just sat on my A... doing nothing.

[DJ360 6,729]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

The kings College article.

 

Turns out is not an unbiased report by a number of academics, it's another Byline times article written by Dr Corbet who is using his employers name to add credence.

 

I see no need for it to be  a 'group' effort. It's published on the Kings College website, and also in Byline Times, which was the reason I put a in my post.

Surely Kings College would have disavowed the article had they thought it insufficiently rigorously researched, or damaging to their Academic reputation?

Dr Corbet and his main specialism of Defence Studies hardly come across as 'raving lefties'.

 

Surely there comes a point at which you can no longer dismiss valid criticism of this Tory Govt. simply by claiming it to be 'biased' etc.  Of course it's biased..we're all biased, but that does not make the evidence any less valid, nor does it make it go away.

 

You continue to pretty much ignore the fact that, whether any of us like it or not, the Tory Party has moved so far to the right as to be unrecognisable, even making much of Thatcher's borderline Dictatorship seem tame in comparison.

Yes, all parties snipe at the BBC, but the Tories have raised this to a new level by trying very hard to install 'their' man..only being defeated by their inability to hide their corrupt practices.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

It is also almost four years out date and as yet no coup has taken place.

 

Well of course you won't see Far Right 'Blackshirts' marching into Parliament, but that is the whole point.. the attempted coup is silent.. under the radar, etc. I'm amazed that you don't see the intent.

22 hours ago, Brew said:

The Russia report opens the door to conspiracy theories but is in fact little more than he said she said. 

 

The Russia Report was very deliberately and unjustifiably delayed by Johnson et.al. in the run up to an election and the final publication heavily redacted. What do you conclude from that?

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

One of your quotes:

 

"The Tory party has no excuses. New Labour knew how they wanted Britain to work. The Conservatives have produced no such vision. Conservatism is in general allergic to big ideas and systemic thinking. Most Tory mps are happier moaning about institutions than altering them."

 

That's a separate argument, which in effect describes Tory incompetence and disunity. It in no way negates the argument that elements on the Far Right of the Tory Party are working to a much more sinister agenda.

You were initially sceptical of the Truss/Bannon stuff, but you had to accept it as true once you saw it.  Surely if the Tory Party was anyway reasonable, it would have expelled Braverman, Truss, Anderson and others?  Why hasn't it? I suspect it's partly a case of 'keeping your enemies closer', as there's little doubt where they'll go if pushed and whilst they remain in the Tory Party, they still appeal to a certain class of Tory voter.

And as if by magic, as I type, I'm reading that Anderson has joined the Far Right 'Reform' Party, becoming their first MP. As far as I'm concerned, a betrayal of the people of his constituency. If he had any conviction, he'd have resigned, forced a by-election and stood officially for Reform instead of slithering in the way he has.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

Apart from being years out of date it could just as easily apply to the present Starmer opposition. When they stop contemplating their collective navels will they ever tell us what they propose?

 

For all the information Rachel Reeves gave us today (Kuenssberg BBC this morning), she might as well have not bothered to turn up.

 

We aren't presently discussing HM Opposition, we are discussing the Tory Party. We can discuss Labour, but in this context it's just 'Whataboutery'.

 

I make no apology for finishing with an article from the Guardian, just about the only UK paper not owned by Foreigners or Tory supporters/donors.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/24/tories-power-grabs-government-britain-voters

 

Either the Tories really are intent upon a quiet Coup, or they are using Far Right rhetoric in a desperate attempt to whip up 'populist support', in the manner of the Far Right the world over.

I see no reason, given the factionalism within the Tories, why both cannot be true.

 

 

 

[Brew 5,416]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I see no need for it to be  a 'group' effort. It's published on the Kings College website, and also in Byline Times, which was the reason I put a in my post.

 

Bylines is a left wing version of GBnews, it's simply not as widely read. What we don't know is who commissioned Corbets piece. It was not a researched paper, there is no title page, abstract, introduction, discussion, or references.

I'm of the opinion it's nothing more than his opinion and if Byline commissioned it then then he who pays the piper...

Did Byline shop around for tame sympathiser? Why would an expert on defence choose to write

a piece well out of hit area of expertise?

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Surely there comes a point at which you can no longer dismiss valid criticism of this Tory Govt.

 

I do not dismiss valid criticism, I'm increasingly of the opinion we do not have a party fit to govern, if UK politics were a commodity I'd be in the queue asking for a refund. and looking back there are a good few instances of me agreeing you in disparaging Boris and others.

What I do dismiss are unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that the fascists are about to break down the doors. Woolly inferences drawn from disparate facts assembled into a mish mash vacuous theory that we are on the verge of collapse.

 

Are there shadowy organisations? yes of both left and right (BNF and Militant  to name two), and both trying to foist there particular brand of control over us, but opposition forces have been vying to to do so since we became a democracy in 1832.

The Guardian is interesting but skewed, Rishi is an unelected PM? - no he isn't, he has the same mandate that Gordon Brown had. Becket claims he did not win a leadership contest, clearly rubbish, he did which is more that can said for Brown who only got the job after McDonnell failed to challenge him.

Sloppy journalism Col.

[mary1947 2,079]

BREAKING NEWS????

 

Lee Anderson to join

                 Monster-Raving-Looney-Party. 

 

                    

[Deepdene Boy 642]

When are people going to realise that Reform UK are as Fascist as Moseley's Black Shirts from the 1930s. They need to be stopped at all costs.

[Oztalgian 3,291]

10 hours ago, Brew said:

This often means they're embarrassed at the cost overrun and would risk voter confidence if they made the figures public. There should be no such thing for any non national security organisation that spends tax payers money. 

Spending money to promote an event and encourage visitors is understandable. 

Is there an FOI in Australia?

 

Unless we're talking big numbers and it's to reduce the congestion they can cause, the logic of providing free transport just for ticket holders escapes me .

 

Posting on here Qz is fine and you make good points but i's doubtful if anyone over there will read it, have you sent the same to your local officials? You'll probably get the same smarmy reply I do but at least it salves my  conscience that I'm not just sat on my A... doing nothing.

Brew, In answer to your comments.

There is FOI in Australia, but responses are often heavily redacted claiming and confidentiality, security and any other nefarious reason they can think of to not give us the information.

I strongly object to using taxpayers money to entice sporting celebrities and entities to our state. If their offering is so good they would not need government support.

The AFL season runs from now until September, The Adelaide oval holds 40,000 people if 30% of the crowd use public transport on free tickets that is 24,000 free trips each week for 24 weeks. With two teams using this transport that is almost 600,000 free trips. 

I regularly send requests for information to our local and other parliamentarians both State and Federal and usually receive wishy-washy responses that do not answer the questions posed. I communicate with the local media (ABC Radio) on issues they cover. I do so in the forlorn hope that one day someone will listen and act, I doubt it but it does make me feel better in that at least I am doing something.

[DJ360 6,729]

 

8 hours ago, Brew said:

 

I do not dismiss valid criticism, I'm increasingly of the opinion we do not have a party fit to govern, if UK politics were a commodity I'd be in the queue asking for a refund. and looking back there are a good few instances of me agreeing you in disparaging Boris and others.

What I do dismiss are unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that the fascists are about to break down the doors. Woolly inferences drawn from disparate facts assembled into a mish mash vacuous theory that we are on the verge of collapse.

 

 

Yes. I'll take most of that, especially  your first paragraph. But I'll say again that it's not about black shirted goose stepping mobs. It's about a steady chipping away at citizens rights, at the independence of the judiciary, the supremacy of Parliament, etc. That stuff is not unsubstantiated  conspiracy theories, it is all documented fact.

And yes, most of the media opposition  to the Tory Far Right is inevitably coming from the very few papers etc, which are not Tory supporting and it inevitably  takes the form of journalistic 'opinion pieces'. And of course, 'sloppy journalism' isn't the sole preserve of the left.

And yes, there are always shadowy groups on both right and left, but you continue to dismiss the point that the Tory Far Right IS a REAL threat, especially  in a world where the Far Right is continually  gaining ground and cooperating internationally.

There are many other commentaries, research papers etc., online but again, they are often 'subscription only' or otherwise difficult to access. But this link below is, surprisingly, from a US Govt. website and has some interesting  long-term analysis of the rise of the Tory Right.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932367/

[Brew 5,416]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

It's about a steady chipping away at citizens rights, at the independence of the judiciary, the supremacy of Parliament, etc.

You regularly claim tory attacks on our freedoms  and I agree. But lets have a quick peek at who did most damage to our freedoms. 

I did mention my taking part in a very poorly attended protest against the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill probably the nastiest piece of legislation of this parliament.

Will Starmer change anything? NO. Will he remove police powers to coral the people even though they've done no wrong ('kettle' ), for hours on end for instance?  NO

Will he remove the shackles the police want to impose on legitimate protest I wonder.? That will be another resounding no.

Labours actually has a record similar if not even more so than the Tories when it coms to impinging on our liberties., but people have short memories it seems.

 

This from the Guardian on Blairs autocratic style of knee jerk governance:

 

"Tony Blair's 10 years as prime minister have been marked by a dramatic jump in the number of new laws, according to research published today.

Over the course of the last decade, each year has seen an average of 2,685 new laws - the equivalent of almost seven and a half a day or one every three-and-a-quarter hours - said legal information providers Sweet & Maxwell.

That is a 22% increase over the average 2,196 laws made annually over the previous 10 years 1987-96, and the total does not even include thousands of laws introduced into the UK under European Union regulations over the decade.

The flood of legislation has also been marked by an increase in the use of statutory instruments, rather than acts of parliament, to introduce new laws, said Sweet & Maxwell."...

 

Statutory Instruments are , as you know, laws laid down with scant reference to parliaments scrutiny, there is almost no time allowed for debate:

 

"The content of Statutory Instruments is normally prepared by Government Departments and this means that the Government can fill out the details of primary legislation or sometimes even change primary legalisation without having to pass another Act through Parliament."

 

Ten years 2196 laws = almost 22 thousand new laws on the statute books. Virtually 50% by SI.

 

And one for the Brexiteers:

 

"Prof Sealy also pointed out the Blair years have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of EU legislation that becomes law in the UK without ever having to be passed through the UK parliament as a statute or statutory instrument."

 

Blair it can be said not only lied to parliament he abused his office and misused his authority. Half of all the law he created were made this way. Remember we are talking of new laws, not modifying old ones.

 

All governments have used SI in the past but  Blair seems to have quietly used them as a nuclear option.

So who has made the greater inroads towards an authoritarian state? Who sidestepped democracy more?

Supremacy of Parliament?

[Brew 5,416]

Just finished the link and for an American  publication it's quite good, I expected far more hysertia

 

Edit

The author Chalrie Ellis may be British, not American as a I thought. Might account for the excellent writng....

[Oztalgian 3,291]

I have just read an article on what the public think about our two major political parties. In the comments I came across this sentence.

"Our democracy is broken. Infected by an insiduous political virii. We are in the midst of a political pandemic."

 

Not knowing the word virii I looked it up and found this on Wiki 

• The plural virii, though common, is based on a misunderstanding of Latin. In classical Latin, virus appears to be a singulare tantum without any attested plural. If virus were a masculine 2nd declension noun, it would form its plural with a singular -i as viri. In fact as a neuter 2nd declension noun, in New Latin, the plural is formed as vira.

Bl**dy hell I'm glad I never did Latin. I sometimes have enough problems with English.

[philmayfield 6,130]

We used to say -

‘Latin is a language as dead as dead can be.

It killed the Ancient Romans and now it’s killing me!’

 

 

[Willow wilson 894]

Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas,

In my opinion.

[Jill Sparrow 10,305]

Omnia probate, optima tenete.  Loose translation: You're standing under this dome because you were stupid enough to pass your 11+   The motto of The Manning School.

[philmayfield 6,130]

Our school badge, beneath a picture of a centaur, said ‘Tenax Propositi’. Tenacious purpose. All a bit vague. It changed during my time there. Previously it was the less pretentious ‘HM’.

[Oztalgian 3,291]

On 5/25/2023 at 6:40 PM, DJ360 said:

Difficult to disagree.  I'm sure Kate is a lovely girl, but the royal switch from ostentatious privelege  to 'just 'like us', is hard to swallow. Of course they are just like us, except that they live in a cocooned environment of privelege and wealth.

The main stream media here in Oz have got their knickers in a knot over a photoshopped photograph taken and altered by Princess Kate. There are all sorts of conspiracy theories flying around. Why do they go nuts on this sensationalism when the average Joe public does not care who did what to whom and when, they are all too busy trying to survive price rises to bother with this garbage. Is it the same in the UK?

[DJ360 6,729]

I can only speak for myself Oz. I'm pretty uninterested in 'The Royals', though not an active Republican, in the sense of wanting them all removed etc. The problem around Kate as I see it, is that there is intense speculation around her health, which in my view is her own business... and as they say 'nature abhors a vacuum', so that in the absence of any real facts, the rumour mill goes wild and seizes on the photo. Quite why she published it is my only question.

[DJ360 6,729]

1 hour ago, Willow wilson said:

Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas,

In my opinion.

 

I didn't do Latin, but I'm assuming 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!!'

 

Cheer up old chap! 

 

Dum spiro spero!

 

The HP motto was 'Virtus Sola Nobilitas', which I was reliably informed translates as 'Virtue Is The Only Nobility', a sentiment with which this old lefty fully concurs!

[Jill Sparrow 10,305]

26 minutes ago, Oztalgian said:

The main stream media here in Oz have got their knickers in a knot over a photoshopped photograph taken and altered by Princess Kate.

I noticed that no one withdrew the photo of Andrew with his (? Was it his?) arm around the teenage Guiffre girl. Looked like a very dodgy image to me and many have expressed doubt over its origins. No, there was no pulling of that image due to press standards relating to 'tampering'. Wonder why? Perhaps it was because salacious news attracts attention and sells papers, thus enabling the trial by media so many are so fond of?  Journalism becomes yellower by the day.