And no sign of that so far. It's not hard to imagine how today's fascist rally blocking a port would have been treated if the cause was climate disaster or Palestine. It’s very frustrating.
As someone pointed out on bsky, Just Stop Oil protesters got five years in jail for merely *planning* to do this to the M25.
Kent police described it as a 'spontaneous protest'. Presumably they all "spontaneously" took the train down to Dover wearing black and carrying balaclavas.
BBC coverage was predictably terrible describing it as a protest (no quotes), and using passive cop tense ("This photo appears to show .." etc).
But the very fact these private armies have developed while ministers and the police have been criminalising peaceful protesters under terrorism laws indicates warped political and operational priorities. Anti-terrorism is topsy-turvy because ministers and the police prefer easy targets under sweeping laws which seem even to confuse judges.
Terrorism law is the special body of law which gives the state extra powers beyond the general law of the land. It should be used sparingly and with deliberation. Indeed, such laws used only to be enacted on a temporary basis, even against the IRA. But now terrorism law is used casually and, as we can now see, inefficiently. And so we have the sights of mass arrests for holding up signs, and also of no arrests for those in political uniforms causing havoc.
I think if you are going to take a classical liberal (Mill etc) view of things then this is a conclusion that is more or less forced on you.
Yes, pathetic isn’t it. Mass civil disobedience is, in the clear knowledge that you’re going to be kettled, kicked and arrested is probably the only option, because the government and parliament are not giving a lead.
And it needs pointing out how long this has been a problem for Labour, particularly given the 9/11 anniversary and how soon afterwards the UK under Blair turned towards sweeping anti-terror laws.
I am a bit confused as to ... why Palantir would want Watson working for them?
Well, they do contracts for governments, and he himself worked at a high level in government, so...
persuant...
...given what I take to be the SoF britpol community's generally negative view of this Watson guy, is there any reason to think an outfit like Palantir would NOT want him as an employee?
Is it maybe a question of practical suitability, like he doesn't have the relevant skill set?
The original application for him to have a peerage was turned down, probably owing to his role in Operation Midland. He didn’t complete either his training as a librarian or his undergraduate degree.
And Chris Philp, the misprint masquerading as Shadow Home Secretary, is letting the wind blow his tongue around as my blessed mother would say. He really is an oxygen thief.
What does the team think of Andy Burnham’s speech to the Labour Party conference?
I’m sure the focus will be on cutting the Triple Lock increase on by removing the earnings criterion. This is weaselled around a bit, but I’m sure it will work out like that although there will be a lot of opposition in the Party.
However, the other key elements, the Care Service, leasehold reform, dropping the ideological commitment to private ownership of water companies and Electoral reform, which may stymie the Fascists at a likely cost of coalition governments until the Rapture, could all be presented positively with little effort. In any event, I have always thought that the main problem with the State Pension is that it is too meagre to start with, and the very existence of Pension Credit demonstrates this.
Re the triple lock. You have to take it on the context of the rest of that section. He said he would bring up the state pension to a higher rate and then get rid of the wage related lock. Pension would still rise with or above inflation. Switching the funding from the wage related section to social care will mean that pensioners will not have to take care bills out of their pension. It will work similarly to the NHS. So assuming that things work out pensioners should be no worse off on real terms. Having social care working better will free up more space in hospitals meaning people will be treated quicker including pensioners who need the NHS more as they grow older. This of course assumes it all works out.
Lease hold has never affected me but I think it is a stupid idea and needs to go.
Changing the ideology on water is a good start. Private water companies have not been successful. Here in Wales Welsh water is a none profit which is a way forward if they don’t want to go fully state owned.
As to electoral reform. The first past the post system is too unreliable. There needs to be a way to represent the vote share better. That said, as you hinted at first past the post more often then not leads to one party being in government. That of course has its own problems
I hope that the government does increase the pension before removing the wages increase element, but it will reduce the savings needed for the National Care Service, which I anticipate will cost a fortune if it is done properly, and not end up a licence for care homes to print money.
I’m totally with you on water. We are in Wales too and we know families who would have had a much harder time over the border.
I’ve always been a supporter of electoral reform, and the d’Hondt system is used for the Welsh Senedd election. The problem with that is that it uses “party lists”, which usually means the candidates who will toe the party line are at the top of the list and therefore get elected, which may be against the wishes of their constituents. I prefer Single Transferable Vote, which gives each constituency a single representative, but can confuse voters when it comes to listing their preferences. It generally reduces the likelihood of extremists getting elected (unless they get over 50% of the vote in the first round, or close to that).
We’ll have to see what legislation is proposed first.
I hope that the government does increase the pension before removing the wages increase element, but it will reduce the savings needed for the National Care Service, which I anticipate will cost a fortune if it is done properly, and not end up a licence for care homes to print money.
In a sane world care homes would be taken into public ownership, like hospitals were, but what we will probably see is a capped weekly fee that care homes are expected to work to (this already exists for those who are Local Authority funded) that will be borderline insufficient to provide good quality care (particularly if there are high overheads like a care home has been sold and leased back by private equity vultures). I wouldn't be totally surprised if we end up with a situation like that for children's social care with a shortage of spaces for people with high support needs that leads to paying cowboy outfits exhorbitant sums to house, poorly, people with (say) forms of dementia that make them prone to violence.
I assume that the UK government will learn from the experience of the Scottish Parliament when it comes to implementing a NCS. Though I expect that they won't know anything about it a find exactly the same problems and the idea will end up on the same rocks next to the wreck of the Scottish plans.
Re electoral reform, is the particular form of this set in stone? Or, are we going to get a discussion of the pros and cons of the different options before moving towards a vote to adopt a particular option?
It seems to me that these promises are impossible. Burnham is doing a good job making leftwing noises that nobody sensible can disagree with but seems heading for a situation where he cannot deliver them.
The fact is that the population is getting older and sicker. The economy is growing but not in a fast way.
So how is this "national care" system to be paid for? How will the money be found for an increasing number of pensioners needing expensive heart operations and ongoing NHS treatment? Where will the thousands of youth-workers come from and who will pay for them? How will care workers get the promised increase in pay and respect?
The number of people in employment is dropping, we are not replacing them with working-age migrants who pay tax into the system and there seems to be very little planning for economic growth. Other than putting all bets on AI.
@Basketactortale mentions economic growth being driven by AI. I expect this could be immensely profitable but fewer enterprises would be involved. If that were the case, then the tax burden could fall on these few enterprises at a much higher tax rate, to support the many people now in roles made obsolete by AI. Work as we know it could well be split into the professions on one hand (generally well paid with good conditions) and jobs that involve interaction with other people, many of which are poorly paid and rarely pay enough to get sufficient credit to buy a home.
And the government wants to chivvy non-working disabled people on benefits into work without doing anything to ensure that employers are actually willing to hire disabled people, nor pay any money to help disabled people retrain or otherwise gain new skills for going back to work.
Comments
If he does believe that he also believes there are exceptions.
He said he wanted to 'reverse Thatcher's legacy', but so far all the noises from Healey indicate business as usual.
Also he's going to have to do a lot better than Starmer in reacting to masked fascists on the streets.
Dressed in black with a balaclava definitely has a political terrorist look.
Got to love a bloke in a hijab.
And I recall the Right banging on about how trucks should just run them over and the police wash them away with water cannon.
Kent police described it as a 'spontaneous protest'. Presumably they all "spontaneously" took the train down to Dover wearing black and carrying balaclavas.
BBC coverage was predictably terrible describing it as a protest (no quotes), and using passive cop tense ("This photo appears to show .." etc).
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/the-weekly-constitutional/74703/holding-a-placard-is-terrorism-disruption-in-balaclava-is-not
As he says:
I think if you are going to take a classical liberal (Mill etc) view of things then this is a conclusion that is more or less forced on you.
Turns the special relationship into a pathetically bad joke.
This is my shocked face at this news:
Piece of shit found in toilet: film at 11.
Not out of choice.
Well, they do contracts for governments, and he himself worked at a high level in government, so...
persuant...
...given what I take to be the SoF britpol community's generally negative view of this Watson guy, is there any reason to think an outfit like Palantir would NOT want him as an employee?
Is it maybe a question of practical suitability, like he doesn't have the relevant skill set?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm5yjzj8l5k5o
And Chris Philp, the misprint masquerading as Shadow Home Secretary, is letting the wind blow his tongue around as my blessed mother would say. He really is an oxygen thief.
I’m sure the focus will be on cutting the Triple Lock increase on by removing the earnings criterion. This is weaselled around a bit, but I’m sure it will work out like that although there will be a lot of opposition in the Party.
However, the other key elements, the Care Service, leasehold reform, dropping the ideological commitment to private ownership of water companies and Electoral reform, which may stymie the Fascists at a likely cost of coalition governments until the Rapture, could all be presented positively with little effort. In any event, I have always thought that the main problem with the State Pension is that it is too meagre to start with, and the very existence of Pension Credit demonstrates this.
Lease hold has never affected me but I think it is a stupid idea and needs to go.
Changing the ideology on water is a good start. Private water companies have not been successful. Here in Wales Welsh water is a none profit which is a way forward if they don’t want to go fully state owned.
As to electoral reform. The first past the post system is too unreliable. There needs to be a way to represent the vote share better. That said, as you hinted at first past the post more often then not leads to one party being in government. That of course has its own problems
I’m totally with you on water. We are in Wales too and we know families who would have had a much harder time over the border.
I’ve always been a supporter of electoral reform, and the d’Hondt system is used for the Welsh Senedd election. The problem with that is that it uses “party lists”, which usually means the candidates who will toe the party line are at the top of the list and therefore get elected, which may be against the wishes of their constituents. I prefer Single Transferable Vote, which gives each constituency a single representative, but can confuse voters when it comes to listing their preferences. It generally reduces the likelihood of extremists getting elected (unless they get over 50% of the vote in the first round, or close to that).
We’ll have to see what legislation is proposed first.
In a sane world care homes would be taken into public ownership, like hospitals were, but what we will probably see is a capped weekly fee that care homes are expected to work to (this already exists for those who are Local Authority funded) that will be borderline insufficient to provide good quality care (particularly if there are high overheads like a care home has been sold and leased back by private equity vultures). I wouldn't be totally surprised if we end up with a situation like that for children's social care with a shortage of spaces for people with high support needs that leads to paying cowboy outfits exhorbitant sums to house, poorly, people with (say) forms of dementia that make them prone to violence.
The fact is that the population is getting older and sicker. The economy is growing but not in a fast way.
So how is this "national care" system to be paid for? How will the money be found for an increasing number of pensioners needing expensive heart operations and ongoing NHS treatment? Where will the thousands of youth-workers come from and who will pay for them? How will care workers get the promised increase in pay and respect?
The number of people in employment is dropping, we are not replacing them with working-age migrants who pay tax into the system and there seems to be very little planning for economic growth. Other than putting all bets on AI.