Anything Political

[Brew 5,416]

“I clearly stated that something was obviously wrong in Liverpool”.

 

True enough but that one rather scant line was all before rapidly moving the focus to an attack on the Tories.

You have an excellent command of English so I’m surprised you need ‘misappropriated’’ defined but it means something has been ‘appropriated wrongly’, ‘used for an unauthorized purpose’ among other things. Collins defines it as ‘wrong’ OR ‘dishonest ‘use, note the conjunction.

 

 Neither I nor CatFan suggest anyone has stolen anything or indeed committed a criminal offence, we merely observe and comment on that which is in the public domain. At most I asked if the missing money was due to ‘greed, profligacy, incompetence or corruption, three of which are not necessarily criminal activities, and I quite clearly stated my confidence that the delay in building the hospital was not due to someone having greasy palms.

 

 To answer your question about councils…

Those with money woes are Liverpool, Nottingham and Croydon, the latter requiring huge amounts of non-Croydon residents’ money to bail them out. In the spirit of fairness though I should mention the Conservative Northampton council who are also bankrupt.

 

The PPE, T&T etc.  Is another example of a smokescreen Col, it is nothing to do with the subject in hand. The amount of money is irrelevant, it was all above board, accountable and at least we know where the money went, so yes legit…

 

If by conservative (thankfully you spelt it with a small 'c') you mean I throw money around like a man with no arms then guilty as charged. If you mean I support Boris and his cronies you couldn’t be more wrong.

 

At the risk of bringing unilateral condemnation the protests and the Sarah Everard tributes were against the law as it stands at the moment. It is the job of the police to enforce the law. You don’t like it – change the law. Protesters may have a case but the Sarah gathering, though sad, should not have happened. Thousands have died through Covid without the communal breast beating we saw there and you cannot flout the law simply because you feel sorrow or sympathy for something.

 

You seem to empathise or at least understand tempers flaring and yes maybe the police were heavy handed. They are human though and when attacked and spat on whilst doing their job tempers are just as likely to flare among them too. It must be difficult when dealing with a mob to remember to say please and thank you.

 

 

[catfan 14,793]

My comment was made about another Labour council losing £millions of council tax payers money.

Just shows that Labour councils can't be trusted with other people's money.

[Stavertongirl 1,719]

Donnygate in Doncaster was a labour council that wasted a lot of tax payers money on first class junkets etc for themselves and their mates a few years ago. 

[DJ360 6,728]

OK.  I've already said..twice.. that there is clearly something wrong in Liverpool. I do not know what it is and am not speculating.

 

I obviously do not agree that the fact that three Labour controlled councils are having financial issues at present, in any way points to a general lack of capability of Labour. There are over 400 councils of one sort or another in England.  There is strong evidence to the effect that Labour councils have suffered more cuts under the last 11 years of Tory Central Govt than have Tory controlled councils. And of course Labour Councils tend to exist in areas of deprivation, so that they tend to have a bigger job on their hands in securing decent services, economic development, housing etc.  Incidentally, my own local Labour council, St Helens MBC, seems to do pretty well under external audit. There's a further element here.  Whatever the stripe of the council..financial competence/efficiency/efficacy or whatever doesn't necessarily translate into effective service provision.

Also, as you acknowledge Jim, there are Tory run councils in pretty poor shape too and I think that Liverpool, 'Donnygate' etc.. whilst obviously not to be dismissed lightly.. will have to go some way to rival the nefarious activities of the notorious Dame Shirley Porter in the Westminster Council 'Homes for Votes' scandal. And of course her apparently limitless financial power and influence seem to have insulated her from any real repercussions.

 

Demonstrations.  What I saw was people.. mostly women, socially distanced and wearing masks.  It was only when they were prevented from laying tributes, that things got a bit ugly, and it is clear to me that the Police tactics were just stupid and provocative.  It would have been entirely possible to allow people to individually lay tributes and then withdraw, but the Police tactics made things worse.  Remember, the person currently accused of murdering the young woman is also a Police Officer. Rightly or wrongly, that further raises emotional temperatures.

 

There is also considerable debate about what really happened in the recent Bristol demo. One demonstrator claiming that he was standing in front of a Police Officer with his hands in the air, clearly unarmed and saying. " Look.. I am Peaceful"  Whereupon the Policeman hit him on the head with his baton.

 Finally, I'm inclined to wonder.  Do demo's always get nasty?  Do 'troublemakers' latch on to peaceful demos?  Or do dark forces deliberately send in 'Agent Provocateurs' to start trouble, in order to 'prove' that demonstrations have become intolerable and must be stopped.. ?  Just like Trade Unions in the past....

We are in dangerous and unstable times.

 

Jim, I deliberately used a small 'c' to describe my understanding of your politics.  You generally get concerned about public spending, you openly oppose socialist ideology etc.  As I've already said, there is nothing wrong with that. You are entitled to your view.  But, and here's what I don't understand.  You say you have no time for Johnson and his crew..and having met you I can easily believe that.. yet when I attack them.. you set out to dismantle my argument.  I don't get it.

From my perspective, the rot set into British Politics when Thatcher was elected.  That woman destroyed the previous 'consensus politics' and opened the way for spivs to replace serious politicians, who, I could grudgingly respect, whilst ferociously disagreeing with them.  I cannot have any respect for the current Tory Party, because its lead politicians are all crooks..and those who support them within the party are tainted by association.

 

And finally...

On 3/28/2021 at 3:35 PM, Brew said:

The PPE, T&T etc.  Is another example of a smokescreen Col, it is nothing to do with the subject in hand. The amount of money is irrelevant, it was all above board, accountable and at least we know where the money went, so yes legit…

 

Agreed.. it is not directly relevant to Liverpool, but in my view it is indicative of the current Tory Party's whole approach to public money.  Their major mission and their instinctive action is to push public money into private hands... but only certain private hands.  I'm amazed that you can conclude that the awarding of PPE and T&T contracts without proper tendering etc.. can really be excused on grounds of 'emergency'. Was it really 'accountable'?  Do we really know where the money went?

[DJ360 6,728]

On 3/28/2021 at 4:02 PM, catfan said:

My comment was made about another Labour council losing £millions of council tax payers money.

Just shows that Labour councils can't be trusted with other people's money.

 

Sorry Mike but it doesn't. 

It shows that some Labour Councils have perhaps not been the best at managing budgets.  It remains to be seen exactly what is wrong in Liverpool and whether it has actually damaged the people of Liverpool.

Believe me.. there are plenty of Tory councils who are balancing the books by just not caring about delivering proper services to the most needy in their care.

[Brew 5,416]

“I obviously do not agree that the fact that three Labour controlled councils are having financial issues at present, in any way points to a general lack of capability of Labour”

 

I did actually say that I don’t tar them all with the same brush…

 I have in mind though Labours reputation for ‘boom and bust’ fiscal policies of some years ago, the policies Brown swore he would not return to. You yourself, as a hardened socialist, once proposed heavy investment as a possible solution with, quite frankly, some very tenuous possibilities of them actually working. Perhaps some councils still carry ‘spend your way out difficulty’ gene.

 

I’ve looked recently at the ratio of Labour v Conservative budget cuts and it’s too complex for this forum, suffice to say the various methodologies vary wildly and it’s not as straight forward as many think.

 

Raising the Porter affair is a bit of whataboutery so let’s go a small step further back and mention the Maxwell, Kagan and Miller affairs when dear old Harold was PM - irrelevances all.

 

Demonstrations against the terrible Police, Crime, and Sentencing & Courts Bill I fully support, providing it is within the law. There is still a way to protest legally, they didn’t follow the rules thus the breakdown.

The Sarah tributes you mention must be different to the one shown on the BBC. At best masks were 50/50 and zero for social distance.

Sarah Everard: Crowds turn out for vigil - BBC News

Of course the Beeb chose women to interview and of course ensured they were properly masked, now check the background… 

The fact the accused was a policeman should have no bearing and the gathering and the trouble actually risks him having a fair trial.

 

I would challenge that the police were stupid, this from someone who has quite a ‘down’ on them as a whole. You think the people should have been allowed to continue? If it’s OK for them, why hit poor impoverished homesick students with £10,000 fines when all they wanted was a bit of company and relaxation in these uncertain times?  I’m being rhetorical of course but my point is the law applies to everyone regardless.  Had they listened to the police request / order to disperse and go home there would have been no unpleasantness

 

The unarmed man? Hearsay I’m afraid and police are trained to hit only as a last resort and never above the shoulder. There were way too many cameras for a policeman to do that and risk his career. I don’t  say it didn’t happen, I wasn’t  there  but I do  say I doubt it.

Demos are, as we both know, on occasion hijacked by factions with ulterior and often nefarious motives. Are they part of the deep state conspiracy?

 

“We need to gain greater control of the people so let’s generate a situation where they will accept new laws and we can convince them it's for their own good”

 

 If that accusation can be levelled at anyone look to Tony Blair. During his time he and his gang created over 3,600 new criminal offences, more than 1 a day whilst Labour ruled.

 

You’re amazed that contracts were issued sans the tendering process, I’m not. I’m glad someone had the balls to make the decision we needed these things we need them ASAP and we can argue the rights and wrongs of it later. Had they gone through the bureaucratic process plus the usual challenges and parliamentary scrutiny etc. we could well be still in negotiations. The opposition would justifiably have crucified them.

 

Do we know here the money went? Yes, it bought lots of PPE and a pretty useless T&T app. At least we have something for our money and have a better idea of where it went than Liverpool does about theirs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,728]

On 3/30/2021 at 3:44 AM, Brew said:

I did actually say that I don’t tar them all with the same brush…

 I have in mind though Labours reputation for ‘boom and bust’ fiscal policies of some years ago, the policies Brown swore he would not return to.

 

And nor did he..despite the conventional (if you are Tory) wisdom.  Surely you aren't going to claim that Labour under Brown caused the 2008 World Crisis of Capitalism?

 

On 3/30/2021 at 3:44 AM, Brew said:

You yourself, as a hardened socialist,

 

Hardened Socialist?.  Who told you that?  I certainly didn't..

We've been here before..  I am first and foremost a Democrat.  I'm left of centre in British Politics. which at present really isn't very far left at all.  I won't get into splitting hairs between Democratic Socialist and Social Democrat.

Let's put it this way... I recognise that we are stuck for the forseeable future with a broadly Capitalist World economic system.  It won't endure.  No economic system ever has. 

 

Given that reality, I look at the UK today and see an increasingly divided society, in which wealth and privelege are acrueing to the already rich, with increasing speed.  Yes.. it is true that in general we are all better off than our parents were.. but it is clear that some are 'more better off' than others.. by a huge margin.  More to the point. this is the result of an increasingly 'rigged' system.

There is absolutely no doubt whatever, in my mind, or in the facts.. that this country is heading back to 19th C levels of inequality .  The power relationship between rich and poor is changing for the worse.  This is why Johnson is so determined to ban protest.  He knows he is engaged in a class war.. and like fascists since the year dot.. he is busy persuading his victims that what he is doing is for their own good. And far too many wannabes are sucking it up.  From the poorest to the richest.. there is not one person on NS, who the Tories give a damn about.  They will gleefully accept your vote.. then screw you over.

On 3/30/2021 at 3:44 AM, Brew said:

Demonstrations against the terrible Police, Crime, and Sentencing & Courts Bill I fully support, providing it is within the law. There is still a way to protest legally, they didn’t follow the rules thus the breakdown.

 

Jim. Surely you can see the inconsistency in your argument.!!  Govt. wants to ban dissent, yet you argue that you support dissent..so long as it is within permitted Govt. limits?  Really?  That sounds very Chinese..or Russian..or something...

On 3/30/2021 at 3:44 AM, Brew said:

I would challenge that the police were stupid, this from someone who has quite a ‘down’ on them as a whole.

 

Q. Where were they when hundreds were turning parks into Rubbish Dumps?  A. Standing about looking on. They had no point to prove... and no interest in behaviour which.. whilst idiotic.. was not especially political.  Do you not see this?

 

They got it wrong at the Sarah demo. That WAS political. on many levels.   They inflamed emotions by insisting on preventing tributes and then demonising extremely fired up protesters who they prevented from laying them. It was stupid, stupid, ignorant and insensitive policing... and entirely unneccessary. They KNOW they got it wrong but in the time honoured tradition of police forces the world over.. they issue some bollocks about failed communication on the ground and we are supposed to suck it up.

 

[Brew 5,416]

 Surely you aren't going to claim that Labour under Brown caused the 2008 World Crisis of Capitalism?

 

Nope, not at all.

 

I mentioned the boom and bust reference to make the point that even Labour acknowledged the futility of spending as a way out of debt. Corbyn tried to sell it to us during the last election and I merely wondered if the spend, spend spend philosophy still circulated in some councils.

 

Sorry I couldn’t resist the sobriquet. Yet by hardened I note your apparent inflexibility and you do come across as very determined to never find anything good to say about the present government.

 

This latest in our discussions started after a reference to Liverpool and apparent mismanagement of public funds. You scarcely acknowledged it. No reference to the persons involved, no naming names despite the information being public knowledge. You gave it a one line sentence before launching your attack on the Tories. It seems you felt no need to be coy about naming Tory names or had any compunction about accusing them of criminal behaviour and corruption. Now you state with absolute certainty there is not one person on Nottstalgia the Tories care about. I won’t say hyperbole but it's an overstatement and not one you can support.

 

 I look at the UK today and see an increasingly divided society,

 

I have said, here and elsewhere, society is become increasingly polarised, of that there is no doubt. I do not however see it in such simple terms as rich versus poor, it’s far more complex. We agree the changes are taking place, we agree the speed of change is increasing. We disagree on the driving forces.

 

Surely you can see the inconsistency in your argument

 

There is no inconsistency. I have attended organised protests and until protesting becomes illegal I will stay within the rules. Should lawful, peaceful protest be banned I am prepared to act contrary to common law.

On a point of protest I wonder how many can be arsed to write to their MP, how many even bother to turn up to the surgery and make their opinion known or even a simple phone call. There are ways to make a nuisance of yourself and get your point across without being arrested. 

 

They had no point to prove... and no interest in behaviour which.. whilst idiotic.. was not especially political.  Do you not see this?

 

No. What I do see is a lot of melodramatic overreaction by those who think laying a few flowers does any good. They know it doesn't but it's trendy to beat yourself up, wear sack cloth for an hour or so and weep buckets on behalf of  a total stranger - then go home for tea and telly having cleansed their souls. They could try sticking the fiver in a charity box but no one will notice or cry crocodile tears and hug them assuring them of what good and caring people they are.

 

Where were the police when the parks were littered? Did you forget it was after the lifting of lockdown and the crowds were not actually breaking the law?

As for the litter, have you never been to an outdoor festival? Crowds do what crowds do nothing unusual about it and by the time the wind and weather has had a go at dead flowers and wrapping paper…

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,728]

19 hours ago, Brew said:

I mentioned the boom and bust reference to make the point that even Labour acknowledged the futility of spending as a way out of debt. Corbyn tried to sell it to us during the last election and I merely wondered if the spend, spend spend philosophy still circulated in some councils.

 

 

I remember it rather differently.  Corbyn certainly promised spending...mostly to repair the damage caused by years of pointless, and many might say, spiteful austerity. I think he also was perfectly well aware, as was I, and seemingly also Rishi Sunak... that public debt has bugger all similarity with household debt.

The bit you missed out, was that Johnson also promised huge spending and Corbyn/Johnsonengaged in a bizarre public spending 'bidding war'.. in attempts to buy votes.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Yet by hardened I note your apparent inflexibility and you do come across as very determined to never find anything good to say about the present government.

 

It's difficult to sympathise with crooks and incompetents.  I repeat that this is not an automatic hatred of political/economic conservatism ..which I disagree with, but can understand.  It is a hatred of the crooks, spivs and entitled incompetents who comprise the current Tory Govt..and by implication... much of the parliamentary party and wider membership.

Just look at them:

  Johnson.. a known liar who has been sacked from everythng he ever had approaching a 'proper' job.  a failure as London Mayor, a man who lied to the Queen.. disposed of all reasonable opposition in his own party and is now emboldened so much by his parliamentary majority that he apparently doesn't even bother appearing to tell the truth.  He lies with impunity.

Gavin Williamson.  Defence..Education.  A total idiot and a clear demonstration of the fact the the present Govt is incompetent and scraping the barrel to find qanyone of Ministerial quality.

Priti Patel.  Also previously sacked for dubious practices and since accused of bullying.  A really horrible woman with mno merit whatever as a minister.

Hancock.  Now here... I think we have someone who s genunely trying to do his best.. but he is too weak to resist pressure from the likes of Johnson and the Tory right..hence numerous failed lockdowns, U turns etc.

20 hours ago, Brew said:

This latest in our discussions started after a reference to Liverpool and apparent mismanagement of public funds. You scarcely acknowledged it.

I said upfront.. twice.. that something is clearly amiss in Liverpool. Is that 'bare acknowledgement?

I do not live in Liverpool and I take little interest in its politics, except insofar as there is a very long history of mistrust between Liverpool and the Tories.  If you examine that. it is hardly surprisng. The only name I know confidently is Joe Anderson.. the Mayor who was arrested, then bailed.. and now no longer on bail.  I've heard some stuff about a 'culture of fear' involving council officers and employees.  I know nothing more.  I am not dismissing it.. I literally know no more than I have said.   I'm sure the allegations will come out iin the fullness of time.

20 hours ago, Brew said:

There is no inconsistency. I have attended organised protests and until protesting becomes illegal I will stay within the rules. Should lawful, peaceful protest be banned I am prepared to act contrary to common law.

 

I'm glad to hear it.  So am I... except.. what is 'lawful'.. is decided by Govt.. so we are back to square one.

20 hours ago, Brew said:

On a point of protest I wonder how many can be arsed to write to their MP, how many even bother to turn up to the surgery and make their opinion known or even a simple phone call.

 

I do so frequently.  I can't speak for others.

 

You entirely missed the point I made about the difference in policing of largely peaceful political protests, and largely idiotic mass gatherings.

 

 

[Brew 5,416]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The bit you missed out, was that Johnson also promised huge spending and Corbyn/Johnsonengaged in a bizarre public spending 'bidding war'.. in attempts to buy votes.

True both promised huge investment, the difference being Johnson for all his faults actually detailed where the money would be spent whereas Corbyn was vague with pie in the sky generalisations and for much, much bigger sums.

But we went over that at the time and thankfully the voters saw through it.

 

I have no argument with your assessment of the those named though Hancock in my opinion deserves more recognition for his achievements with Covid. As for Sunak the jury is still out.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

what is 'lawful'.. is decided by Govt.. so we are back to square one.

 

Not sure I follow, maybe I'm tired but how are we back to square one?

 

I'm not sure you understood my point. The rule of law is paramount and regardless of whether the gatherings were peaceful or not  if they are breaking the law it's incumbent on the police to act. We cannot pick and choose, that's not how it works. You think the police should have played nice and turned a blind eye. If they do that for hundreds mingling at a gathering why not accord a few students having a party the same treatment? No one raised objections when the police started issuing them with draconian fines.

"They're students, serves 'em right" seemed to be the general feeling. Were any protesters or flower arrangers given £10,000 fines? No? what about £100 or 50? or...

One rule for one and different one for someone else is just not on. 

[DJ360 6,728]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

I have no argument with your assessment of the those named though Hancock in my opinion deserves more recognition for his achievements with Covid. As for Sunak the jury is still out.

 

I think Hancock generally means well, but is not a strong player politically. Sunak is a great speaker.. though his first budget with its triumphalist note is looking a bit sick now.  He is a Tory through and through.. so he will have no problems making us all pay whatever happens. I forgot to mention Jenrick.. utterly despicable.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

Not sure I follow, maybe I'm tired but how are we back to square one?

 

Because you basically oppose the new legislation.. but will still follow it 'because it is the Law...' even though you know it is wrong, anti democratic and possibly fascistic.  So.. if you maintain that stance you are enabling a very bad Govt. anpiece of very bad legislation.  There are times when 'the Law' ( It's not really the Law.. it's the Govt.) needs to be challenged.

21 hours ago, Brew said:

We cannot pick and choose, that's not how it works. You think the police should have played nice and turned a blind eye. If they do that for hundreds mingling at a gathering why not accord a few students having a party the same treatment? No one raised objections when the police started issuing them with draconian fines.

 

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

I'm not sure you understood my point. The rule of law is paramount and regardless of whether the gatherings were peaceful or not  if they are breaking the law it's incumbent on the police to act. We cannot pick and choose, that's not how it works.

 

Of course the Law applies to all.  But my point is that it is not being equally applied to all.

 

I still think the Police response to the Sarah issue was insensitive AND politically naive.  They have bumbled themselves into a hole.

Students have been generally very badly served throughout this whole catastrophe and yes.. some have kicked over the traces.. but why are they punished when idiots gather in huge numbers, turn parks etc.. into rubbish dumps and yet go almost completely unpunished?

 

It's simple in my view.  The Police pick their fights.. and they are mostly political ones.

 

 

[Brew 5,416]

 

Surely you don't think Labour would do any different when the Covid bill lands on the doormat? Sunak will make us pay you think,,, and the alternative is?

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

but will still follow it 'because it is the Law.

 

I oppose it and at the moment act within the law as it stands. If the new legislation makes protest illegal then I will probably be breaking the law. I can't see why you find that difficult.

I am still of the view though  that bending the ear of our representatives, especially at public meetings, has more effect. Unless it's a Labour conference where I would probably be set upon by the heavy mod and thrown out a la Walter Wolfgang.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Of course the Law applies to all.  But my point is that it is not being equally applied to all.

 

I note your opinion  about the Sarah tributes but strongly disagree. 

I accept that the law is more equal for some. A point I also made about the £10,000 fines but I struggle to see invading a party or stopping a mass tribute is political. 

Different forces with different manning levels and Crime Commissioners focussing on different priorities will lead to inconsistences. It shouldn't but it does.

I get the impression you think there is some secretive political directive from the Tories guiding the police, doesn't really stand up to scrutiny though.

 

I'm not sure but I think Clapham and the flower tributes come under Lambeth, a solid Labour ward. Student fines - Nottingham and Labour again. Crime commissioners are elected officials (should have been Chief Constables in my view), so given the strength of Labour among voters in  those areas it's reasonable to assume the commissioner is also left leaning. No, I don't believe the recent problems are the result of the police having a Tory driven political agenda.

 

My whataboutery:

I'm confused why suddenly everyone is up in arms over the littering, it's always been so. Agreed it's disgusting but Trent embankment in the summer after the festival is awash with rubbish, ditto the Goose Fair (200 tonnes!) and ditto London Rd when the football supporters walk from the station. Ditto the Gay Parade and anywhere travellers feel like dumping crap on a playing field. Why is no one getting their knickers in twist about those? Why the double standard?

 

To expect thousands of youngsters to behave any differently after being let loose from their confinement is naive in the extreme.

But they are idle layabout students so they deserve all they get. They deserve to pay rent for accommodation they can't use, they deserve to borrow huge amounts of money to pay for tuition they aren't getting, they deserve to be given massive fines that will take years to pay off...

 

[DJ360 6,728]

On 4/3/2021 at 1:53 AM, Brew said:

Surely you don't think Labour would do any different when the Covid bill lands on the doormat? Sunak will make us pay you think,,, and the alternative is?

 

Well of course the Covid bill is going to have to be paid.. along with all other Govt. borrowing, at some point.  I'll just make 2 points. 

Firstly, there is no special hurry for the country to pay back what it has mostly borrowed from itself in the form of bonds, especially while interest rates are so low.  In fact I'd argue that it is criminal of Govt NOT to borrow to put many things right..especially the state of pubic housing, the whole Grenfell issue and its knock on..and so on.

Second.  I just know that a Tory Govt will seek to repay our collective debt by making cuts in services, benefits..including state pensions.. etc.  It's what they do. They won't change.

 

On 4/3/2021 at 1:53 AM, Brew said:

I note your opinion  about the Sarah tributes but strongly disagree. 

 

The Sarah 'demo' was simply and mostly a socially distanced gathering.  Yes, it was technically illegal.  It was focused around a bandstand where people laid tributes... so I still insist that it was pure idiocy of the Police to surround the bandstand and prevent people from laying tributes. Such an insensitive and even provocative action was only ever going to result in one outcome.

It seemed to me to arise from the same sort of mentality which brought us 'kettling'.. another needlessly provocative abuse of Police power.

 

I still argue that a mass, non socially distanced and in many cases drunken gathering in a park or wherever....whilst it might well be a result of frustration.. needed a more definite police action to break it up...but this is not what I saw in several locations.

 

I've already said numerous times that students have been very badly served throughout the pandemic, and for the reasons you detailed.  We are in agreement on that.

 

As for littering.  I for one am not 'suddenly' up in arms about littering.. but sick of seeing it everytime anythiing draws people out of their customary weekend spent in the pub watching the footie.. into our local beauty spots.

 

 

[Brew 5,416]

44 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Well of course the Covid bill is going to have to be paid.

Basically there is no Labour alternative on the table and claiming there will be a reduction in state pensions to pay for it  is a little like crying before being bit.

After having quite high hopes I'm beginning to think Starmer was not a good choice as leader. He's turning into a clone of a liberal party leader (who's name I can't think of at the moment), Where is the opposition? Is it any wonder Johnson is running rings round everyone?

44 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

The Sarah 'demo' was simply and mostly a socially distanced gathering

 

You clearly saw something I didn't so we're going to have to disagree. Call it a social gathering, dress it in frills and pretty bows if you will but it was illegal and Fullers edict still applies.

The two situations, In my view. were fundamentally the same, a large crowd breaking rules, one you want to allow, one you you want police action. Sorry but you can't have it both ways and the reason for them being there is irrelevant.

 

The kettling, (used increasingly around the world) was and is lawful with certain provisos though it sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

In the same vein the Kill the Bill protest in Derby was ... pathetic. Whoever said that the people get the government they deserve got it spot on... I despair

[DJ360 6,728]

59 minutes ago, Brew said:

Basically there is no Labour alternative on the table and claiming there will be a reduction in state pensions to pay for it  is a little like crying before being bit.

 

It was just an example of the sort of stuff Tories do.  And you know that Tories have been attacking state pensions for years.

 

59 minutes ago, Brew said:

After having quite high hopes I'm beginning to think Starmer was not a good choice as leader.

 

It's hard to disagree.  He lacks fire and is just not taking the Tories to task.  That said.. most of the Labour movement have things called 'principles'.  They are quite disparate and the term 'Broad Church' barely covers it..   In contrast Tories are only interested in power and money. 

 

I find it amusing that some of them are crying crocodile tears over the possibility that 'Covid Passports' might create a 'two tier society'.  The hypocrisy is deafening. Tories will always favour themselves and their cash and close ranks.. despite 'little local difficulties'.

 

59 minutes ago, Brew said:

The two situations, In my view. were fundamentally the same, a large crowd breaking rules, one you want to allow, one you you want police action. Sorry but you can't have it both ways and the reason for them being there is irrelevant.

 

I'm not sure how many times I have to make this point.  The police targeted the most sensitive issue.. that of laying tributes. In deliberately and cynically and stupidly preventing that, they deliberately insulted all present, raised the heat and caused far more trouble than necessary.

Contrast that with their reaction to piss artists in large groups in parks.

59 minutes ago, Brew said:

The kettling, (used increasingly around the world) was and is lawful with certain provisos though it sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

 

It is only a matter of time before someone dies in a 'kettled' situation.. because some senior copper is more interested in maintaining control.. and being seen as such.. than in protecting the rights of UK citizens to protest peacefully.  What are our police for? I have yet to see any instance in which 'kettling' was justified..and certainly not for hours on end.  It is, in effect, unlawful imprisonment and it must stop.

[Brew 5,416]

8 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I find it amusing that some of them are crying crocodile tears over the possibility that 'Covid Passports' might create a 'two tier society'.  The hypocrisy is deafening. Tories will always favour themselves and their cash and close ranks.. despite 'little local difficulties'.

 

When Tories are against or challenge something they cry crocodile tears in a  demonstration of hypocrisy. Labour members who agree and say the same thing are.... nothing? no comment?

Are the Tories agreeing with Labour or vice versa?

18 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

And you know that Tories have been attacking state pensions for years.

You what I'm going to say about Labour and pensions...  pot ... kettle...

 

20 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I'm not sure how many times I have to make this point.

 

Nor am I. To say they deliberately insulted the tributers is clearly nonsense and just innuendo, plus we seem to be confusing two incidents. The police acted against two gatherings, those making an illegal protest and a crowd laying flowers and crying on each other shoulder. And lets not forget why the rules were in place. If there is a peak locally in Covid cases due to littering a bandstand will it still be OK?

 

The littering incident on the Forest and Arboretum was nothing to do with it. No I don't condone it but I do understand and it's not entirely due to drunkenness. There is a distinct lack of amenities in both those places and those holier than thou who say take it home have never tried carrying a bag of rubbish about all day and then getting on a bus with it.

Saying it shouldn't happen is like Canute trying to hold back the tide

[Brew 5,416]

There is a predisposition by governments to choose their moments when releasing bad news, the most notable in recent times being Jo Moore and 9/11.

Today whilst the world is looking away Cameron admits trying to pressure Sunak into looking favourably on some scheme he's involved in - whilst in Scotland they slipped out this afternoon that the Scots economy has shrunk by 5 billion pounds (3%) and the school exam results are quite bad, terrible in fact.

In matters that have important implications for independence it seems Sturgeon is a bit reluctant to mention them in her campaign messages.

Such practices are likely to continue and possibly become even more underhand. Blair was well known for the number of special advisors he employed but at the side of the blessed Boris he was a rank amateur.

 

[DJ360 6,728]

Today's top (only?) news story has caused me to think about the whole issue of 'The Monarchy', and 'Royalty'.  I do see them as slightly different.

 

Our Monarchy is basically an institution which has been incorporated into the mechanism of 'The State'.  The Monarchy currently exists by the consent of Parliament and the people.  Yet in a curious way, each lends legitimacy to the other.  It is what it is. I recognise its usefulness as a 'marketing' tool for the UK, and also as a sort of more or less politically neutral focus for the population when needed.

 

Royalty, on the other hand..is frankly an absurd concept...which gives present day 'royals' some sort of legitimacy... in the eyes of those who accept the bluff.

Those individuals who are deemed 'royal' by dint of their family history and descent, are essentially the descendents of people who acquired and maintained power and ascendency through military force, skulduggery, murder, intrigue, incest, and worse.  There is no 'direct' line of 'royal' descent..and several times throughout our history.. different people/families have gained ascendency through conflict, convenient marriages, murder...or even invitation... etc...

'Royalty' ceased to have any meaning once democracy was established in the UK.. not that it had any real meaning beforehand other than some bizarre belief in 'divine right' etc.

Are those above qualities ones we should really be using to elevate human beings to some sort of status which places them above the masses?

Pushing the point a bit I know.. but just for effect... Putin is a man who has maintained power in Russia by disposing of his enemies..or silencing them through fear.  In what way is he different to Henry VIII?

Same could be applied to China, North Korea, numerous Gulf/Arab states.

Royalty is a sham.

[Brew 5,416]

Royalty is just a word to describe the status of a few individuals nothing more than that, if we discount the anarchist view then we must accept  leaders. Kings, Popes, Dictators, Presidents etc. all gained power through institutions that came into being through violence and it makes no difference which side of the throne they sit. Even the poor pastiche of democracy we have today is the result of force. From that perspective there's nothing to choose between them.

But at least the titles give the  proletariat something to aim at if nothing else.

[DJ360 6,728]

10 minutes ago, Brew said:

Royalty is just a word to describe the status of a few individuals nothing more than that,

 

I disagree.  To be 'Royal', you have to be descended from royals.  OK. a few get to be royal by marriage.. but our royal family is essentially a closed shop.

 

14 minutes ago, Brew said:

if we discount the anarchist view then we must accept  leaders. Kings, Popes, Dictators, Presidents etc. all gained power through institutions that came into being through violence and it makes no difference which side of the throne they sit.

 

That is arguably true..though it is only kings and dictators who choose to attempt to perpetuate their power in a dynastic fashion.

 

17 minutes ago, Brew said:

Even the poor pastiche of democracy we have today is the result of force. From that perspective there's nothing to choose between them.

 

I agree it's an increasingly poor democracy we live in.. but that is a separate issue.

 

But democracy is the result of the gradual wresting of 'absolute' power from kings, dating back at least to Magna Carta and most powerfully represented by the execution of Charles 1.  And yes.. it the result of force... or arguably the result of the defeat of forcibly held absolute autonomy, in favour of a more equitable sharing of power.

 

Democracy.. even in an imperfect state.. is a deliberate effort to invest power in the wider people, rather than just a king/dictator etc. 

[DJ360 6,728]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

But at least the titles give the  proletariat something to aim at if nothing else.

 

With a gun?... ( I jest..)

 

But really.. do you imagine that the bulk of the 'proles' spend their time wishing they could be royal?  I very much doubt it.. 

 

Less poor? Yep.

Better treated?  Yep.

Royal?  Doubt it.

 

The only one I ever heard.. apart from kids.. was Johnson... with his desire to be 'World King'.  But he is a Bona Fide idiot.

 

 

[Brew 5,416]

I don't imagine many want to be royal in any way more than a pleasant pipe dream - though being lord of all you survey has a certain attraction. 

There's now't so queer as folk and though they say they don't want to be an aristo, they don't want anyone to be one either. But how many would continue to say no if they suddenly inherited a title?

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

though it is only kings and dictators who choose to attempt to perpetuate their power in a dynastic fashion.

 

I don't think so... 

Trudeau, Ghandhi/Nehru, Churchill, Bush, Kennedy... all non royal, all have tried perpetuating their grip on the reins through nepotism or marriage, some more successful than others. I couldn't think of any more so  I googled political dynasties and it's amazing how many there are with not a King, Queen or Emperor in sight. The president of Uruguay for instance is apparently the forth member of his family to hold the titles head of state and head of government.

 

It can be said it's the natural order of things, do we not take from out forefathers and hand on to our offspring?  How many have helped our kids with jobs at our place of work?  

Dynastic families are no different to us, they just do things an a grander scale.. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only Johnson? 

[Oztalgian 3,290]

On 4/1/2021 at 1:27 PM, Brew said:

I wonder how many can be arsed to write to their MP, how many even bother to turn up to the surgery and make their opinion known or even a simple phone call

I do regularly especially when the clowns float their latest "brain fart" or continue to be incompetent as in our shambolic vaccine roll out.

Recently our states' glorious leader floated the idea of a new sports stadium near to the city centre at a time when ambulances and their patients are being ramped because of limited ED capacity. Mental and aged health care support is broken along with many other public services and support programmes, The gap between have and have nots is growing ever wider and these buffoons come up with the idea of building a new sports stadium using public monies. If the sporting clubs want one then let them build it using their money and see how far that flies.

They need to be told clearly and consistently that you will consider where your vote is placed at the next election, ours is less than a year away so now is the time for the great Joe Public to let their views be known but alas, as Brew states, far to many cannot be arsed to do so. The only time they might listen to the voters is at election time

[DJ360 6,728]

Lobbying.

Of course 'lobbying', by trying to get an MP to listen to your point over something and then maybe to raise it in the House  ..etc.. is one thing.. and it's all perfectly legal. In many cases such lobbying is aimed at gaining support for the righting of some real..or perceived injustice..rather than for personal, much less corporate, financial gain.

 

In the middle I suppose are those paid, employed 'professional' lobbyists, employed by corporations to try to bend the ear of politicians in favour of their paymasters.  A very 'shadowy' buunch in my view.

 

But at the other end of the scale.. people who are paid...and employed.. principally because they have strong connections in Govt... or via the 'old boy' network... to influence Govt. policy or action in favour of particular corporate interests..  

It's called 'priveleged access'.. and it stinks.

 

It's true that Govt.s of all stripes have struggled with the proper regulation of 'lobbying' for a very long time.. but I also believe that the corruption/sleaze etc.. which can be represented by the worst kind of lobbying is far more prevalent in Tory ranks.

 

Which brings us onto Mr Disaster himself.. the walking failure that is David Cameron...

 

I don't think it is stretching a point to say that he is one of.. if not the most inept (ex) politicians in recent UK politics.

 

Which is why, in my view.. Johnson will attempt to use his tightly defined 'review' or whatever he is calling it.. of Lobbying.. to throw Cameron under a bus. After all Cameron ceased to be of any use to Johnson once he'd implemented his childishly inept and ill thought out Brexit Referendum.

 

I strongly suspect that Johnson will attempt to use his Parliamentary majority to declare the matter 'closed'.. just as he did with Jenrick's  clear corruption and Patel's incompetence/ineptitude/bullying.  But will it stick?  We shall see.  I for one have never been in any doubt that the present Govt. is the most corrupt and self serving since most probably the early 19th C.

 

As for Crother's role in all of this? Well for a start he only joined the Civil Service in 2007...after an allegedly successful business career.  Some might find that an odd move.

 

Which leads me onto the untold and entirely inappropriate influence of Demonic Cummings.. the one who wanted to replace lifelong Civil Servants with ..what was it? 'Loonies and nutjobs'?.. I forget now..  but the gist is that he..in his infinite self determined wisdom had decided that there was no 'deep expertise' in the Civil Service.  What he really saw was proper resistance to his own loony and maverick approach to the implementation of democracy. 

Has he really gone?

 

 

[Brew 5,416]

Difficult to say you're wrong, in fact I don't believe you are. However in the spirit of fairness and balance I'll point out that though you say governments of all stripes you again quickly gloss over and pass by Labours record.

 

Bernie Eccelstone coughed up a million quid to Blair to keep cigarette advertising on F1 cars and parliamentary records show that Blair did indeed personally get involved - he had to give it back.

 

No peer in 350 years has been suspended from the Lords for having been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar... oh wait yes there were, two... both Labour...

 

Hoon, Byers, Caborn... the list goes on and on and it's a sad comment on the quality of politicians over the last fifty years or so.

 

Cameron was allegedly on for 'earning' sixty million which to me is a sickening amount but with numbers like that and the fact it's not actually illegal, it would be difficult for anyone to turn it down.