Stand up for the rights of the disinterested masses. – politicalbetting.com

System

Stand up for the rights of the disinterested masses. – politicalbetting.com

The rise and rise of the single issue activist have been one of the noteworthy features of the last 30 years. Whether it is gender, climate, dogs, cats, oil or housing there will be a pressure group full of activists ready to swing into action. Activists are focused on their pet project and are quite vocal about it too. And it’s not just individuals, often charities are corporate activists while receiving money from taxpayers.

Read the full story here

Fishing

All very reasonable and indeed necessary, but standing up to lobby groups and special interests needs moral courage, expertise, a sense of duty and perseverance in the face of hostile Twittermobs, so I'm afraid it won't happen with our current political and governmental class - of either party.

Casino_Royale

Quite right. Superb piece.

Benpointer

Credit and thank-you to AlanBrooke for writing these headers but I never realised he was so illiberal in his outlook. Are we only to allow state sanctioned protests?

Would he have allowed any, some or all of the Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote single issue protests to name but a few?

Taz

The media is a big player in this. Especially local news and local papers where articles are merely lobbyists press releases recycled as news and presented as such.

CarlottaVance

Benpointer said:

Credit and thank-you to AlanBrooke for writing these headers but I never realised he was so illiberal in his outlook. Are we only to allow state sanctioned protests?

Would he have allowed any, some or all of the Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote single issue protests to name but a few?

Did any of Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote get a single penny of tax payer money?

Unlike, for example, the gendercrats in Scotland, almost entirely dependent on Scottish Government funding, who advised the Scottish government on gender recognition reform and when subsequently consulted on it decided it was absolutely fine?

That’s the whole point, politicians outsourcing the hard thinking to special interest groups, then ducking responsibility for the consequences when poorly thought through law blows up in their faces “but we asked civil (sic) society - don’t blame us!”.

CarlottaVance

Fishing said:

All very reasonable and indeed necessary, but standing up to lobby groups and special interests needs moral courage, expertise, a sense of duty and perseverance in the face of hostile Twittermobs, so I'm afraid it won't happen with our current political and governmental class - of either party.

It also needs special interest groups to raise their own funding and not be dependent on the tax payer - then we can see how broad their support truly is.

CarlottaVance

Meanwhile, there are still people fighting the good fight:

https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/maddox-prize-2023/

TimS

There’s a lot of sense in this article but it’s coming at it from a partisan point of view. All the examples given are left wing / “woke”, with the single exception of the reference to NIMBYism which crosses the left-right divide.

The scourge of single interest political pressure groups exists on the right as well as the left. The players are different - it’s usually expressed via noisy think tanks like the IEA or rabble rousing politicians like Farage - and the means can be more insidious, but the effect is the same: to stop necessary things being done and cause unnecessary things to be done.

It’s difficult to regulate the influence of single issue campaigners precisely because it’s usually about influence through speech and action rather than money (as is the case in more corrupt countries). The best prophylactic is politicians with brains in their heads and a press that exercises due scepticism.

And of course some single issue campaigns are absolutely vital, be they from business or environmentalists or rights activists. Without them we’d live in a much more authoritarian, more polluted, more bureaucratic world.

Chris

So we are going to ban social media and make sure people can enjoy their Facebook accounts in peace?

This is almost worthy of a Rishi Sunak policy initiative.

Peter_the_Punter

More thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff from Alanbrooke this morning.

Is this a trend?

Foxy

If only the single issue monomaniacs of Brexit had shut up...

ajb

Have just read Dunt's book "How Westminster Works... and Why It Doesn't" , which is much more politically impartial than you might expect from his Twitter feed. It's a review of the mechanisms rather than political advocacy. One of his main points is that the commons has thoroughly abdicated it's responsibility to scrutinize legislation in favour of a partisan approach.

* Apart from very unusual cases (like when May barely had a majority) the front benches have complete control over the process, amendments by backbenchers never get through

* The incentives of the front benches are to just simplistically push " govt view good/bad" and not try to improve legislation in the commons

* Evidence for breakdown of commons scrutiny is that a) the govt increasingly ships unchanged legislation to the commons and then fixes is up later by their own amendments in the lords, and b) that there is an exponential growth in laws that just give ministers the ability to legislate via secondary or even tertiary legislation

* The report stage, where detailed scrutiny is supposed to happen, is completely broken.

So, if MPs are supposed to oppose special interest legislation, this needs fixing first.

Theuniondivvie

Foxy said:

If only the single issue monomaniacs of Brexit had shut up...

Incorrect use of past tense.

Foxy

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

If only the single issue monomaniacs of Brexit had shut up...

Incorrect use of past tense.

Or Scottish Independence...

Single issue campaigns have always been the driving force behind democratic politics, from the Reform Act onwards. Trade Union rights, universal emancipation, female suffrage, etc etc.

People who claim to speak for the "disinterested masses" or "silent majority" are almost always tyrants in the making.

CarlottaVance

#Otis, one of the fastest-intensifying hurricanes in world history, is minutes away from making landfall on Acapulco, Mexico as a Category 5 storm with sustained winds of 165 mph (266 km/h) and gusts to nearly 200 mph (322 km/h).

Catastrophic damage will occur as this unprecedented storm moves ashore in Acapulco, home to over 1 million people.

https://x.com/US_Stormwatch/status/1717059947161395337?s=20

Nigelb

TimS said:

There’s a lot of sense in this article but it’s coming at it from a partisan point of view. All the examples given are left wing / “woke”, with the single exception of the reference to NIMBYism which crosses the left-right divide.

The scourge of single interest political pressure groups exists on the right as well as the left. The players are different - it’s usually expressed via noisy think tanks like the IEA or rabble rousing politicians like Farage - and the means can be more insidious, but the effect is the same: to stop necessary things being done and cause unnecessary things to be done.

It’s difficult to regulate the influence of single issue campaigners precisely because it’s usually about influence through speech and action rather than money (as is the case in more corrupt countries). The best prophylactic is politicians with brains in their heads and a press that exercises due scepticism.

And of course some single issue campaigns are absolutely vital, be they from business or environmentalists or rights activists. Without them we’d live in a much more authoritarian, more polluted, more bureaucratic world.

It is also a fact that government relies on interest groups - which includes commercial interests - for policy input, since the often possess expertise that government doesn't.

Alanbrooke's plea for the interest of the 'disinterested' voter to be given more weight is a good one. It's something of a shame that he appears to blur that voter's interest with the (small c) conservative interest.

CarlottaVance

24 hours ago “Tropical Storm Otis” was predicted to be a “near hurricane”, a day later it has made landfall as Category 5:




https://www.weather.gov/hgx/tropical_scale

StillWaters

Fully agree. I’ve not read your other threads although have heard good things about them. Too much going on in the world at this precise moment so living in an aeroplane.

For me the system of judicial review is totally borked. Of course there needs to be a right of appeal against executive overreach. But on Heathrow there were something like 7 different judicial reviews all going over the same points. It should just be a once and done review if it is necessary - but since Blair’s reforms it has been weaponised by the activist community

OnlyLivingBoy

If the disinterested masses want to be listened to more they need to lose their disinterest. Politics isn't a spectator sport.

bondegezou

The article makes a series of unproven assertions, lumps together disparate phenomena and ends with a series of deeply illiberal proposals that would see the end of free speech. Would make a good Daily Mail column.

CarlottaVance

This aged well:

At Ferguson's for the launch of the Glen Sannox - real excitement and very proud that commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde alive and well!

https://x.com/HumzaYousaf/status/932967198636855296?s=20

“£175m is what we’ve paid for a boat that’s worth £70m?”

“Running the simple maths, that seems to be the answer.”

https://x.com/staylorish/status/1716819398420566071?s=20

Gallowgate

StillWaters said:

Fully agree. I’ve not read your other threads although have heard good things about them. Too much going on in the world at this precise moment so living in an aeroplane.

For me the system of judicial review is totally borked. Of course there needs to be a right of appeal against executive overreach. But on Heathrow there were something like 7 different judicial reviews all going over the same points. It should just be a once and done review if it is necessary - but since Blair’s reforms it has been weaponised by the activist community

Where they actually going over the same points though?

The whole point of JR in these circumstances is not to just prevent “executive overreach” but also to simply sure that decisions are made within the parameters they are required to be made within.

Our whole civil and administrative justice system involves individual parties bringing claims on specific points. Requiring “one shot” at JR from all points and from all possible parties is just unworkable. Our justice system does not require parties to work together and never has.

Nigelb

OnlyLivingBoy said:

If the disinterested masses want to be listened to more they need to lose their disinterest. Politics isn't a spectator sport.

You are confusing (as does the header) disinterested with uninterested.

There isn't a single person in the country, for example, completely disinterested regarding our energy policy choices.

Gallowgate

I’m frustrated at JR blocking development too but maybe the government should stop introducing bad fucking law.

The uncertainty as to what downstream carbon emissions should be measured is the subject of many JRs currently. That could have been avoided it Parliament had spent proper time passing a good law and not relying on the courts to sort it out later.

eek

CarlottaVance said:

This aged well:

At Ferguson's for the launch of the Glen Sannox - real excitement and very proud that commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde alive and well!

https://x.com/HumzaYousaf/status/932967198636855296?s=20

“£175m is what we’ve paid for a boat that’s worth £70m?”

“Running the simple maths, that seems to be the answer.”

https://x.com/staylorish/status/1716819398420566071?s=20

Welcome to every government run capital project in the UK.

Because we don't continually order XYZ we lose all the knowledge we gathered the last time round (so every mistake will be repeated continually). And worse because you are starting at the beginning a lot of costs that could be split across 10-20 items need to be included in every single project.

bondegezou

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

There’s a lot of sense in this article but it’s coming at it from a partisan point of view. All the examples given are left wing / “woke”, with the single exception of the reference to NIMBYism which crosses the left-right divide.

The scourge of single interest political pressure groups exists on the right as well as the left. The players are different - it’s usually expressed via noisy think tanks like the IEA or rabble rousing politicians like Farage - and the means can be more insidious, but the effect is the same: to stop necessary things being done and cause unnecessary things to be done.

It’s difficult to regulate the influence of single issue campaigners precisely because it’s usually about influence through speech and action rather than money (as is the case in more corrupt countries). The best prophylactic is politicians with brains in their heads and a press that exercises due scepticism.

And of course some single issue campaigns are absolutely vital, be they from business or environmentalists or rights activists. Without them we’d live in a much more authoritarian, more polluted, more bureaucratic world.

It is also a fact that government relies on interest groups - which includes commercial interests - for policy input, since the often possess expertise that government doesn't.

Alanbrooke's plea for the interest of the 'disinterested' voter to be given more weight is a good one. It's something of a shame that he appears to blur that voter's interest with the (small c) conservative interest.

It’s Nixon talking about the “silent majority”.

Taz

CarlottaVance said:

Benpointer said:

Credit and thank-you to AlanBrooke for writing these headers but I never realised he was so illiberal in his outlook. Are we only to allow state sanctioned protests?

Would he have allowed any, some or all of the Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote single issue protests to name but a few?

Did any of Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote get a single penny of tax payer money?

Unlike, for example, the gendercrats in Scotland, almost entirely dependent on Scottish Government funding, who advised the Scottish government on gender recognition reform and when subsequently consulted on it decided it was absolutely fine?

That’s the whole point, politicians outsourcing the hard thinking to special interest groups, then ducking responsibility for the consequences when poorly thought through law blows up in their faces “but we asked civil (sic) society - don’t blame us!”.

Many of these groups in gender and health lobbying are, effectively, sockpuppet organisations that take funding from the govt then, in turn, lobby the govt for their pet project.

As you say, the govt is subcontracting out its thinking to these groups. They are effectively arms of the state. The main issue with that, I can see, is these groups simply have a single issue and a single viewpoint. There is also the issue of mission creep and where does it stop. The moment they win, the moment they have influenced and changed policy they cease to need to be so they have to find something else to campaign on to keep the funds flowing.

DavidL

Those plonkers who saw fit to interrupt the Lords Cricket match were up in court this week. They were fined £444 each and banned from Lords for a year. Lords might want to take that a little further.

It did cross my mind that one way of ensuring compliance with the restriction would be to lock them up for the year. As it was, after the gentlest of taps on the wrist, they were completely unapologetic and said they would do it again. Indeed their prosecution became just another campaigning opportunity.

So I understand where @Alanbrooke is coming from. But, even when they interrupt something as important as the cricket, I support the right to protest. I would have somewhat harsher penalties on those who block roads or seek to interrupt others enjoyment but I accept that people doing that are exercising their democratic right of protest. I do think that there should be some rebalancing but not too much.

OnlyLivingBoy

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

If the disinterested masses want to be listened to more they need to lose their disinterest. Politics isn't a spectator sport.

You are confusing (as does the header) disinterested with uninterested.

There isn't a single person in the country, for example, completely disinterested regarding our energy policy choices.

Well yes, I was aware of that but thought we were just going with the popular usage that treats the two words as interchangeable. #noonelikesagrammarsnob.

Nigelb

bondegezou said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

There’s a lot of sense in this article but it’s coming at it from a partisan point of view. All the examples given are left wing / “woke”, with the single exception of the reference to NIMBYism which crosses the left-right divide.

The scourge of single interest political pressure groups exists on the right as well as the left. The players are different - it’s usually expressed via noisy think tanks like the IEA or rabble rousing politicians like Farage - and the means can be more insidious, but the effect is the same: to stop necessary things being done and cause unnecessary things to be done.

It’s difficult to regulate the influence of single issue campaigners precisely because it’s usually about influence through speech and action rather than money (as is the case in more corrupt countries). The best prophylactic is politicians with brains in their heads and a press that exercises due scepticism.

And of course some single issue campaigns are absolutely vital, be they from business or environmentalists or rights activists. Without them we’d live in a much more authoritarian, more polluted, more bureaucratic world.

It is also a fact that government relies on interest groups - which includes commercial interests - for policy input, since the often possess expertise that government doesn't.

Alanbrooke's plea for the interest of the 'disinterested' voter to be given more weight is a good one. It's something of a shame that he appears to blur that voter's interest with the (small c) conservative interest.

It’s Nixon talking about the “silent majority”.

There are shades of that.

But there is also the kernel of a good argument somewhere in there.

Sandpit

Thought-provoking piece, well done @Alanbrooke

MarqueeMark

AI proving a boon to paedophiles:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67172231

Sandpit

DavidL said:

Those plonkers who saw fit to interrupt the Lords Cricket match were up in court this week. They were fined £444 each and banned from Lords for a year. Lords might want to take that a little further.

It did cross my mind that one way of ensuring compliance with the restriction would be to lock them up for the year. As it was, after the gentlest of taps on the wrist, they were completely unapologetic and said they would do it again. Indeed their prosecution became just another campaigning opportunity.

So I understand where @Alanbrooke is coming from. But, even when they interrupt something as important as the cricket, I support the right to protest. I would have somewhat harsher penalties on those who block roads or seek to interrupt others enjoyment but I accept that people doing that are exercising their democratic right of protest. I do think that there should be some rebalancing but not too much.

After the Silverstone 2022 protesters were handed suspended sentences by the judge, for being on the track with F1 cars, the online ‘motorsport community’ was quite vocal about how such activities might be treated in the future.

Protesting is of course fair and reasonable - but disrupting for more than a few minutes events that people have paid to see, causing danger to themselves and others, causing damage to eg a snooker table, or blocking the public highway, need to be dealt with much more harshly by the authorities.

Gallowgate

I’m just a baby lawyer but there does seem to be a pattern of Parliament leaving things particularly vague on purpose. Perhaps because they aren’t entirely clear as to what they want to do or say but want to be seen to have done “something”?

In any event vagueness breeds JR (and other litigation) by its very nature.

EDIT: Being charitable, perhaps Parliament intends for the courts to interpret the vagueness over time so that the law can keep pace with changes in society and science, etc. This is fine and a great benefit of the Westminster system however for this to work you need JR…

Sandpit

Taz said:

CarlottaVance said:

Benpointer said:

Credit and thank-you to AlanBrooke for writing these headers but I never realised he was so illiberal in his outlook. Are we only to allow state sanctioned protests?

Would he have allowed any, some or all of the Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote single issue protests to name but a few?

Did any of Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote get a single penny of tax payer money?

Unlike, for example, the gendercrats in Scotland, almost entirely dependent on Scottish Government funding, who advised the Scottish government on gender recognition reform and when subsequently consulted on it decided it was absolutely fine?

That’s the whole point, politicians outsourcing the hard thinking to special interest groups, then ducking responsibility for the consequences when poorly thought through law blows up in their faces “but we asked civil (sic) society - don’t blame us!”.

Many of these groups in gender and health lobbying are, effectively, sockpuppet organisations that take funding from the govt then, in turn, lobby the govt for their pet project.

As you say, the govt is subcontracting out its thinking to these groups. They are effectively arms of the state. The main issue with that, I can see, is these groups simply have a single issue and a single viewpoint. There is also the issue of mission creep and where does it stop. The moment they win, the moment they have influenced and changed policy they cease to need to be so they have to find something else to campaign on to keep the funds flowing.

The day that the whole transgender stuff started, can be traced back to the day the US Supreme Court legalised gay marriage. The same group of activists, having won their case on gay marriage, simply moved on to the next cause before the money dried up.

CarlottaVance

Lawsuits starting in US:

"But finding no evidentiary support for their radical positions, they nonetheless prepared and authored a “policy statement” ... proposing an entirely new model of treatment, which not only misrepresented or misleadingly presented its purported evidentiary support but was also rife with outright fraudulent representations."

https://x.com/SVPhillimore/status/1717070597316813150?s=20

Nigelb

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

If the disinterested masses want to be listened to more they need to lose their disinterest. Politics isn't a spectator sport.

You are confusing (as does the header) disinterested with uninterested.

There isn't a single person in the country, for example, completely disinterested regarding our energy policy choices.

Well yes, I was aware of that but thought we were just going with the popular usage that treats the two words as interchangeable. #noonelikesagrammarsnob.

I hesitated to point it out just for that reason.
But it's actually essential to thinking about his argument.

There's a very real difference, for instance, between having no interest in a particular issue, and having no interest at all in politics.
And the argument that politicians paying too much attention to issues which don't affect you does indeed affect you in aggregate is an interesting one.

TimS makes the best point, though. What is required is politicians with better judgment.
Though quite how we find them needs better explaining.

RochdalePioneers

Its an interesting piece but I think it misses the golden question - why?

Why do we have so many agitated and organised protests? The author of course only fingers the protests he politically disapproves of - which in part explains the why. Why do so many people feel so disconnected from our polity that their only recourse is disobedience?

The reason - surely - is the failure of politics. Our political parties have become narrowly defined cults who select morons. Hello Richard Burgon and Scott Benton. Hello to the "fuck off" abusive MPs like Lee Anderson and nearly that Tory candidate in Tamworth. Hello the authors of Britannia Unchained who think their constituents are feckless lazy scum. Hello the people who deliberately create a system where public services are ground down to dust whilst literal billions of pounds is lost in tax dodging and PPE contracts and Spiv middlemen "management".

The author fingers the protestors he doesn't like - almost nobody likes them btw - but seems nonplussed by any of the reasons behind it. They protest because politics has failed them in a country which is visibly broken and no longer works.

Read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of this week. Understand the depths of depravity we have brought this country down to. Understand that work doesn't pay the bills, there is no safety net, and the right still want to blame the millions reduced to destitution.

We have an epidemic of shoplifters. People utterly desperate, being organised by criminal gangs. Knowing that in many towns there is no police presence. Even if they get caught the chances of actually getting prosecuted are low, or of eventually going to court, and the prisons are so full that rapists can't be sent there. The Tories have created Britain as Gotham. Yet we're told not to protest?

An election would help. Removing the criminally corrupt and incompetent Tory government would help. But its not a fix because things are so broken. You want to empower people so that protest is less of an issue? Make politics work. PR - vote for what you actually want. In a refounded country where we actually have public services and a social fabric fit for purpose. Then we can put the placards down.

Alanbrooke

Benpointer said:

Credit and thank-you to AlanBrooke for writing these headers but I never realised he was so illiberal in his outlook. Are we only to allow state sanctioned protests?

Would he have allowed any, some or all of the Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote single issue protests to name but a few?

I would have allowed them all, I clearly state protest is part of our democracy. What I wouldnt have allowed is any of the above to bring the country to a halt until they get their way. The 100k or so people you get on a big demo in London are not the 67 million who live in the nation. We elect governments to make decisions not bend over to pressure groups.

RochdalePioneers

Alanbrooke said:

Benpointer said:

Credit and thank-you to AlanBrooke for writing these headers but I never realised he was so illiberal in his outlook. Are we only to allow state sanctioned protests?

Would he have allowed any, some or all of the Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote single issue protests to name but a few?

I would have allowed them all, I clearly state protest is part of our democracy. What I wouldnt have allowed is any of the above to bring the country to a halt until they get their way. The 100k or so people you get on a big demo in London are not the 67 million who live in the nation. We elect governments to make decisions not bend over to pressure groups.

We have so many pressure groups because the government no longer makes decisions fit for purpose. You say you would allow them but not allow them to bring the country to a halt. So you *wouldn't* allow them. The whole point in these demos *is* to bring that place to a halt.

As awful as the pro-Palestine protests have been, the Met for a change were light in policing it. Perhaps down to their desperate lack of resources, perhaps because of woke fears - whatever. Let the protest happen and go home. What they said was awful, and I want arrests of anyone explicitly breaking the law, but otherwise let them.

Alanbrooke

RochdalePioneers said:

Its an interesting piece but I think it misses the golden question - why?

Why do we have so many agitated and organised protests? The author of course only fingers the protests he politically disapproves of - which in part explains the why. Why do so many people feel so disconnected from our polity that their only recourse is disobedience?

The reason - surely - is the failure of politics. Our political parties have become narrowly defined cults who select morons. Hello Richard Burgon and Scott Benton. Hello to the "fuck off" abusive MPs like Lee Anderson and nearly that Tory candidate in Tamworth. Hello the authors of Britannia Unchained who think their constituents are feckless lazy scum. Hello the people who deliberately create a system where public services are ground down to dust whilst literal billions of pounds is lost in tax dodging and PPE contracts and Spiv middlemen "management".

The author fingers the protestors he doesn't like - almost nobody likes them btw - but seems nonplussed by any of the reasons behind it. They protest because politics has failed them in a country which is visibly broken and no longer works.

Read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of this week. Understand the depths of depravity we have brought this country down to. Understand that work doesn't pay the bills, there is no safety net, and the right still want to blame the millions reduced to destitution.

We have an epidemic of shoplifters. People utterly desperate, being organised by criminal gangs. Knowing that in many towns there is no police presence. Even if they get caught the chances of actually getting prosecuted are low, or of eventually going to court, and the prisons are so full that rapists can't be sent there. The Tories have created Britain as Gotham. Yet we're told not to protest?

An election would help. Removing the criminally corrupt and incompetent Tory government would help. But its not a fix because things are so broken. You want to empower people so that protest is less of an issue? Make politics work. PR - vote for what you actually want. In a refounded country where we actually have public services and a social fabric fit for purpose. Then we can put the placards down.

I hope youve got that all off your chest. However I agree with a lot of what you say and have an article in the pipeline which says just as much.

OldKingCole

Good morning everybody.
We’ve had a couple of thoughtful back to basics headers recently.
I suggest that one of the problems we have started back in the early 80s, when the Blessed Margaret implicitly criticised people for going into public service, rather than the city, or somewhere else where they can make money. Public service used to be where the best brains in this country went, or at least some of them! That doesn’t seem to be the case any longer.

bondegezou

Alanbrooke said:

Benpointer said:

Credit and thank-you to AlanBrooke for writing these headers but I never realised he was so illiberal in his outlook. Are we only to allow state sanctioned protests?

Would he have allowed any, some or all of the Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote single issue protests to name but a few?

I would have allowed them all, I clearly state protest is part of our democracy. What I wouldnt have allowed is any of the above to bring the country to a halt until they get their way. The 100k or so people you get on a big demo in London are not the 67 million who live in the nation. We elect governments to make decisions not bend over to pressure groups.

Why do you say you “wouldnt have allowed […] any of the above to bring the country to a halt until they get their way”? None of them brought the country to a halt until they got their way. No-one allowed that.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

F1: Mexico next, during which I shall perform my traditional act of remembering the high altitude affects the cars significantly, but forget in what way.

RochdalePioneers

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its an interesting piece but I think it misses the golden question - why?

Why do we have so many agitated and organised protests? The author of course only fingers the protests he politically disapproves of - which in part explains the why. Why do so many people feel so disconnected from our polity that their only recourse is disobedience?

The reason - surely - is the failure of politics. Our political parties have become narrowly defined cults who select morons. Hello Richard Burgon and Scott Benton. Hello to the "fuck off" abusive MPs like Lee Anderson and nearly that Tory candidate in Tamworth. Hello the authors of Britannia Unchained who think their constituents are feckless lazy scum. Hello the people who deliberately create a system where public services are ground down to dust whilst literal billions of pounds is lost in tax dodging and PPE contracts and Spiv middlemen "management".

The author fingers the protestors he doesn't like - almost nobody likes them btw - but seems nonplussed by any of the reasons behind it. They protest because politics has failed them in a country which is visibly broken and no longer works.

Read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of this week. Understand the depths of depravity we have brought this country down to. Understand that work doesn't pay the bills, there is no safety net, and the right still want to blame the millions reduced to destitution.

We have an epidemic of shoplifters. People utterly desperate, being organised by criminal gangs. Knowing that in many towns there is no police presence. Even if they get caught the chances of actually getting prosecuted are low, or of eventually going to court, and the prisons are so full that rapists can't be sent there. The Tories have created Britain as Gotham. Yet we're told not to protest?

An election would help. Removing the criminally corrupt and incompetent Tory government would help. But its not a fix because things are so broken. You want to empower people so that protest is less of an issue? Make politics work. PR - vote for what you actually want. In a refounded country where we actually have public services and a social fabric fit for purpose. Then we can put the placards down.

I hope youve got that all off your chest. However I agree with a lot of what you say and have an article in the pipeline which says just as much.

I shall look forward to reading it!

Genuinely though, How much of what I wrote do you agree with? You don't usually post as someone who accepts that the country is broken. A million children in *destitution* - not poverty. Don't you support the lot whose Tamworth candidate thought that the people reduced to destitution should "fuck off"?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pioneers, what's the definition of 'destitution' used to determine that there are a million children in poverty?

A quick Google indicates there are 12.7 million or so children in the UK, making a million around 8%.

RochdalePioneers

Meanwhile, in proto-Gilead
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/25/mike-johnson-nominated-us-house-speaker-louisiana

How many candidates will the GOP Congress disagree over before Donald J Trump is nominated? Unless there is a radical change of mind the majority have pledged not to support any candidate backed by the Democrats. So there isn't going to be a cross-party compromise candidate.

Which suggests the opposite. The MAGA faithful want a MAGA candidate, and the non-MAGA representatives fear the MAGA people. Just put the crime lord in the chair, watch the chaos, blame the democrats.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

F1: Mexico next, during which I shall perform my traditional act of remembering the high altitude affects the cars significantly, but forget in what way.

Air is less dense at altitude, so the cars look as if they’re going to Monaco with massive wings, but go faster than they do at Monza.

RochdalePioneers

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pioneers, what's the definition of 'destitution' used to determine that there are a million children in poverty?

A quick Google indicates there are 12.7 million or so children in the UK, making a million around 8%.

"Destitution is defined as the inability to meet basic physical needs to stay warm, dry, clean and fed, either because of a lack of clothing, heating, shelter or food, or because household income falls below a minimum level after housing costs – ranging from £95 a week for a single adult to £205 a week for a couple with two children."

Alanbrooke

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its an interesting piece but I think it misses the golden question - why?

Why do we have so many agitated and organised protests? The author of course only fingers the protests he politically disapproves of - which in part explains the why. Why do so many people feel so disconnected from our polity that their only recourse is disobedience?

The reason - surely - is the failure of politics. Our political parties have become narrowly defined cults who select morons. Hello Richard Burgon and Scott Benton. Hello to the "fuck off" abusive MPs like Lee Anderson and nearly that Tory candidate in Tamworth. Hello the authors of Britannia Unchained who think their constituents are feckless lazy scum. Hello the people who deliberately create a system where public services are ground down to dust whilst literal billions of pounds is lost in tax dodging and PPE contracts and Spiv middlemen "management".

The author fingers the protestors he doesn't like - almost nobody likes them btw - but seems nonplussed by any of the reasons behind it. They protest because politics has failed them in a country which is visibly broken and no longer works.

Read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of this week. Understand the depths of depravity we have brought this country down to. Understand that work doesn't pay the bills, there is no safety net, and the right still want to blame the millions reduced to destitution.

We have an epidemic of shoplifters. People utterly desperate, being organised by criminal gangs. Knowing that in many towns there is no police presence. Even if they get caught the chances of actually getting prosecuted are low, or of eventually going to court, and the prisons are so full that rapists can't be sent there. The Tories have created Britain as Gotham. Yet we're told not to protest?

An election would help. Removing the criminally corrupt and incompetent Tory government would help. But its not a fix because things are so broken. You want to empower people so that protest is less of an issue? Make politics work. PR - vote for what you actually want. In a refounded country where we actually have public services and a social fabric fit for purpose. Then we can put the placards down.

I hope youve got that all off your chest. However I agree with a lot of what you say and have an article in the pipeline which says just as much.

I shall look forward to reading it!

Genuinely though, How much of what I wrote do you agree with? You don't usually post as someone who accepts that the country is broken. A million children in *destitution* - not poverty. Don't you support the lot whose Tamworth candidate thought that the people reduced to destitution should "fuck off"?

Currently I dont support any party as I dont see anyone who is addressing what the country needs. Starmer to his credit is prioritising housing but I dont really think he'll do much about it. He will back off radical change as the pressure groups bog down anything he tries to progress and before you know it he will be hiding behind royal commissions and independent enquiries.

So as a floating voter I have no-one to vote,

bondegezou

NEW THREAD (surprisingly)

DecrepiterJohnL

New thread.

RochdalePioneers

New thread for shame. This one deserved a much longer airing

Alanbrooke

bondegezou said:

Alanbrooke said:

Benpointer said:

Credit and thank-you to AlanBrooke for writing these headers but I never realised he was so illiberal in his outlook. Are we only to allow state sanctioned protests?

Would he have allowed any, some or all of the Stop the Iraq War, Countryside Alliance or People’s Vote single issue protests to name but a few?

I would have allowed them all, I clearly state protest is part of our democracy. What I wouldnt have allowed is any of the above to bring the country to a halt until they get their way. The 100k or so people you get on a big demo in London are not the 67 million who live in the nation. We elect governments to make decisions not bend over to pressure groups.

Why do you say you “wouldnt have allowed […] any of the above to bring the country to a halt until they get their way”? None of them brought the country to a halt until they got their way. No-one allowed that.

It was a counter factual proposals since those large demos operated within the law. On the other hand I would come down more severely on the Just stop oil brigade. They are more than entitled to make their views known but not to bring the country to a halt. The police and judiciary are playing a dangerous game imo. By failing to protect ordinary citizens going about their lives they are discrediting themselves and undermining respect for the law.

TheScreamingEagles

Apologies to Alanbrooke for the publishing SNAFU.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies to Alanbrooke for the publishing SNAFU.

What penalty have you decided on for yourself? Pizza with pineapple or wearing a Max Verstappen T-Shirt?

rcs1000

This article... I don't know... it's almost like I've read it before...

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies to Alanbrooke for the publishing SNAFU.

What penalty have you decided on for yourself? Pizza with pineapple or wearing a Max Verstappen T-Shirt?

I have decided to give up subtlety for a month.

nico679

So a nutjob who tried to overturn the 2020 US Presidential Election is now second in line to the Presidency !

The USA is sadly becoming a failed state .

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies to Alanbrooke for the publishing SNAFU.

Situation normal - Alanbrooke finally up.

Malmesbury

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies to Alanbrooke for the publishing SNAFU.

What penalty have you decided on for yourself? Pizza with pineapple or wearing a Max Verstappen T-Shirt?

I have decided to give up subtlety for a month.

What about the modestly and the quiet dress sense?

Wulfrun_Phil

Omnium said:

TimS said:

Foss said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Something Significant appears to be ongoing tonight in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu is set to make a Statement sometime in the coming minutes and following that the Spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force will also make a Statement; both of these Statement will likely be in someway linked to the order released earlier by the IDF Homefront Command for Residents near the Gaza Strip.

IDF Homefront Command has just released an order for all Residents who have not Evacuated and are still near the Gaza Strip to remain near Bomb Shelters until further notice.

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1717218544813781304?s=20

Rumors are ongoing regarding the Assassination of a High-Ranking Military Official of Hamas who was Killed today by an Airstrike on the Gaza Strip.

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1717216338635075817?s=20

Calling it. A nuke

The only reason to advise people near Gaza to stay in their shelters is because something it going to happen in Gaza. And the Israelis are not stupid enough to nuke something in the immediate neighbourhood that would risk dropping fallout all over their own land.

My assumption is that the last few days have been shaping operations and that they will launch a land invasion after all. We shall see. The invasion itself might ironically be less damaging to civilian life than the bombing if people have already fled. But I expect it’ll be a military bloodbath.

I've been mulling over the issue of whether the people of a state should be held liable for that state's actions. I think I've decided that they should. I thought this about Putin's actions, but it's harder to really tie Hamas to the Palestinians en mass. Nonetheless I conclude that they should be held to account for their leaders actions even if they have a very weak influence on who those leaders should be.

"Held to account" is so bland and inoffensive. Yet in the real world what is happening is that following the slaughter of 7th October, "held to account" amounts to Palestinian children being slaughtered in response, to such an extent that they account for nearly a half of all deaths in Gaza.

Nigelb

North Carolina Republicans just passed their new state House gerrymander that makes it impossible for Dems to win a majority in this key swing state.

The GOP will likely even win a veto-proof 3/5 majority outside of Dem wave years.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1717208918030487811

kle4

Nigelb said:

North Carolina Republicans just passed their new state House gerrymander that makes it impossible for Dems to win a majority in this key swing state.

The GOP will likely even win a veto-proof 3/5 majority outside of Dem wave years.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1717208918030487811

I know they all gerrymander, but it's still a disgrace.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies to Alanbrooke for the publishing SNAFU.

What penalty have you decided on for yourself? Pizza with pineapple or wearing a Max Verstappen T-Shirt?

I have decided to give up subtlety for a month.

BRAAAAACE!

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies to Alanbrooke for the publishing SNAFU.

Mr Eagles compared to some of the things Ive done in the past you are a pillar of competence and integrity

Leon

Fpt for Roger


“More thoughts from the armchair....

I'm probably right in thinking you have never visited any of Israel's neighbour or even Israel itself? Just non stop drivel. Why not go back to your tedious holiday snaps?”


Ok. You asked

I have visited Israel maybe six or seven times over four decades. The earliest in the 1980s. The most recent a year or two before Covid. I have stayed in the Negev desert on a fundamentalist farm. I have dined with Israeli ministers. I have been to swingers clubs in tel aviv. I have stayed in the best suite in the King David Hotel

I’ve stayed on a kibbutz. I’ve walked around the Dead Sea. I once got trapped in no man’s land between eilat and Sinai (and was rescued from my predicament by kind Israeli AND Egyptian border guards). I’ve slept on Israeli beaches. I’ve been all over the West Bank from Bethlehem to Jericho - talking to Palestinians. I’ve stayed in Palestinian hotels and guest houses. I baptised myself in the garden of gethsemane - using Jordan water

As for Israel’s neighbours I’ve actually lived in Egypt. I’ve been all over Syria. I’ve spent weeks in Jordan from Petra to Amman (I once slept in an Amman car park). And in the Lebanon I’ve been from Byblos to Beirut to Baalbek several times, indeed I once got kidnapped by Hezbollah militants in machgarah who held me at gunpoint for a night even as the village was strafed and bombed by the Israeli army and air force

But no, apart from that, I have no experience of the region you stupid fat geriatric old fuck

HYUFD

We should largely express political opinions through the ballot box not ranting on the streets

kle4

I missed this header. I like its basic premise, and the need to consider matters in context, not permit activists to be so powerful. Democracy is not meant to be the most efficient form of decision making, and we want checks and balances, but we can throw up too many roadblocks by making it too easy to hold things up as well.

And I think that is only going to move in the opposite direction to the way Alanbrooke wants.

And I find it hard to argue against a lack of government money for anyone with a legal case against the government. Should some groups be able to use goverment money to attack the government non-legally as well, with campaigns and the like? Less clear to me, but it the cliche is of a group which uses government funds to lobby the government for more money, which if true would be a bit weird.

Alanbrooke

Leon said:

Fpt for Roger


“More thoughts from the armchair....

I'm probably right in thinking you have never visited any of Israel's neighbour or even Israel itself? Just non stop drivel. Why not go back to your tedious holiday snaps?”


Ok. You asked

I have visited Israel maybe six or seven times over four decades. The earliest in the 1980s. The most recent a year or two before Covid. I have stayed in the Negev desert on a fundamentalist farm. I have dined with Israeli ministers. I have been to swingers clubs in tel aviv. I have stayed in the best suite in the King David Hotel

I’ve stayed on a kibbutz. I’ve walked around the Dead Sea. I once got trapped in no man’s land between eilat and Sinai (and was rescued from my predicament by kind Israeli AND Egyptian border guards). I’ve slept on Israeli beaches. I’ve been all over the West Bank from Bethlehem to Jericho - talking to Palestinians. I’ve stayed in Palestinian hotels and guest houses. I baptised myself in the garden of gethsemane - using Jordan water

As for Israel’s neighbours I’ve actually lived in Egypt. I’ve been all over Syria. I’ve spent weeks in Jordan from Petra to Amman (I once slept in an Amman car park). And in the Lebanon I’ve been from Byblos to Beirut to Baalbek several times, indeed I once got kidnapped by Hezbollah militants in machgarah who held me at gunpoint for a night even as the village was strafed and bombed by the Israeli army and air force

But no, apart from that, I have no experience of the region you stupid fat geriatric old fuck

" I have been to swingers clubs in tel aviv."

Did you meet Nick Palmer there ?

nico679

I think we need to stop being shocked about US politics and perhaps accept sadly that the country will soon no longer be a functioning democracy and it appears half of America doesn’t care .

The only crumb if Trump is re-elected is we’re likely to see the continuation of a more withdrawn foreign policy . I doubt he will be starting any foreign wars and won’t accidentally hit the nuke button as he’s fumbling around for his Cheetos !

BartholomewRoberts

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Omnium said:

TimS said:

Foss said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Something Significant appears to be ongoing tonight in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu is set to make a Statement sometime in the coming minutes and following that the Spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force will also make a Statement; both of these Statement will likely be in someway linked to the order released earlier by the IDF Homefront Command for Residents near the Gaza Strip.

IDF Homefront Command has just released an order for all Residents who have not Evacuated and are still near the Gaza Strip to remain near Bomb Shelters until further notice.

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1717218544813781304?s=20

Rumors are ongoing regarding the Assassination of a High-Ranking Military Official of Hamas who was Killed today by an Airstrike on the Gaza Strip.

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1717216338635075817?s=20

Calling it. A nuke

The only reason to advise people near Gaza to stay in their shelters is because something it going to happen in Gaza. And the Israelis are not stupid enough to nuke something in the immediate neighbourhood that would risk dropping fallout all over their own land.

My assumption is that the last few days have been shaping operations and that they will launch a land invasion after all. We shall see. The invasion itself might ironically be less damaging to civilian life than the bombing if people have already fled. But I expect it’ll be a military bloodbath.

I've been mulling over the issue of whether the people of a state should be held liable for that state's actions. I think I've decided that they should. I thought this about Putin's actions, but it's harder to really tie Hamas to the Palestinians en mass. Nonetheless I conclude that they should be held to account for their leaders actions even if they have a very weak influence on who those leaders should be.

"Held to account" is so bland and inoffensive. Yet in the real world what is happening is that following the slaughter of 7th October, "held to account" amounts to Palestinian children being slaughtered in response, to such an extent that they account for nearly a half of all deaths in Gaza.

What "slaughter"?

The alleged hospital bombing turned out to be a Jihadi bomb. The Israelis have given about two weeks notice for civilians to get out before their troops are going in.

Just what more can Israel do to avoid civilian deaths, without giving up on holding Hamas to account?

another_richard

Has Alanbrooke retired ?

Or been made redundant ?

LostPassword

I think the central problem is the commodification of politics.

Instead of politics being something that a large number of people in a democratic society engage in, it's now largely seen in transactional terms. Politicians are treated effectively as any other professional you might engage to provide a service, and if they fail you sack them and bring another firm in.

But that isn't how politics works. Politics is a process, and a democratic citizen's role has to go beyond voting once every few years.

How else do MPs know what tradeoffs are the right ones to make if people across the country are not part of a debate that considers those tradeoffs?

Single-issue activism has arisen as a lacklustre alternative to general political engagement, because people generally have disengaged from the political process.

Luckyguy1983

I am delighted that the brilliant Alanbrooke is becoming a regular writer. I do have a slight point of pedantry 'disinterested' does not afaik mean 'lacking interest and enthusiasm in a topic', it means 'having no (vested) interest in a matter' - so a judge for example should be a disinterested party in a case he or she is trying. Obviously language develops, but 'disinterested' is actually quite a valuable word in its original meaning.

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

North Carolina Republicans just passed their new state House gerrymander that makes it impossible for Dems to win a majority in this key swing state.

The GOP will likely even win a veto-proof 3/5 majority outside of Dem wave years.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1717208918030487811

It doesn't make it impossible just more difficult and does anybody really care who controls the North Carolina state house outside North Carolina anyway?

Leon

Alanbrooke said:

Leon said:

Fpt for Roger


“More thoughts from the armchair....

I'm probably right in thinking you have never visited any of Israel's neighbour or even Israel itself? Just non stop drivel. Why not go back to your tedious holiday snaps?”


Ok. You asked

I have visited Israel maybe six or seven times over four decades. The earliest in the 1980s. The most recent a year or two before Covid. I have stayed in the Negev desert on a fundamentalist farm. I have dined with Israeli ministers. I have been to swingers clubs in tel aviv. I have stayed in the best suite in the King David Hotel

I’ve stayed on a kibbutz. I’ve walked around the Dead Sea. I once got trapped in no man’s land between eilat and Sinai (and was rescued from my predicament by kind Israeli AND Egyptian border guards). I’ve slept on Israeli beaches. I’ve been all over the West Bank from Bethlehem to Jericho - talking to Palestinians. I’ve stayed in Palestinian hotels and guest houses. I baptised myself in the garden of gethsemane - using Jordan water

As for Israel’s neighbours I’ve actually lived in Egypt. I’ve been all over Syria. I’ve spent weeks in Jordan from Petra to Amman (I once slept in an Amman car park). And in the Lebanon I’ve been from Byblos to Beirut to Baalbek several times, indeed I once got kidnapped by Hezbollah militants in machgarah who held me at gunpoint for a night even as the village was strafed and bombed by the Israeli army and air force

But no, apart from that, I have no experience of the region you stupid fat geriatric old fuck

" I have been to swingers clubs in tel aviv."

Did you meet Nick Palmer there ?

No, but I’m guessing he’s a regular visitor. Tel aviv is amazingly racy - in such a religious country

Israel is quite schizophrenic. But maybe that doesn’t need saying

Nigelb

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

North Carolina Republicans just passed their new state House gerrymander that makes it impossible for Dems to win a majority in this key swing state.

The GOP will likely even win a veto-proof 3/5 majority outside of Dem wave years.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1717208918030487811

I know they all gerrymander, but it's still a disgrace.

No, they don't all do it.

A number of western states have independent redistricting commissions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States

And note the worst offenders, where maps can be redrawn by a simple majority of the legislature, which can also override a governor's veto (which would otherwise be a safeguard in the hands of a majority of the electorate) are all Republican southern states.

The GOP is an opponent of democracy.

HYUFD

nico679 said:

So a nutjob who tried to overturn the 2020 US Presidential Election is now second in line to the Presidency !

The USA is sadly becoming a failed state .

There was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Johnson trying via Congress with other GOP congressmen to challenge the 2020 election result before it was confirmed. He was not someone storming the Capitol like some Trump supporters.

Unless both Biden and then Harris die (and any VP Harris would have appointed dies) he also is not going to be President

Alanbrooke

kle4 said:

I missed this header. I like its basic premise, and the need to consider matters in context, not permit activists to be so powerful. Democracy is not meant to be the most efficient form of decision making, and we want checks and balances, but we can throw up too many roadblocks by making it too easy to hold things up as well.

And I think that is only going to move in the opposite direction to the way Alanbrooke wants.

And I find it hard to argue against a lack of government money for anyone with a legal case against the government. Should some groups be able to use goverment money to attack the government non-legally as well, with campaigns and the like? Less clear to me, but it the cliche is of a group which uses government funds to lobby the government for more money, which if true would be a bit weird.

But that is what some of the charities do. Take Stonewall, they have moved on from gay rights to trans rights which they have made an "issue". Now they keep pressing HMG and its agencies to adopt their objectives all of which will require giving them taxpayer money.

Leon

I too applaud the Advent of Alanbrooke

A refreshingly different voice. More please

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

North Carolina Republicans just passed their new state House gerrymander that makes it impossible for Dems to win a majority in this key swing state.

The GOP will likely even win a veto-proof 3/5 majority outside of Dem wave years.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1717208918030487811

It doesn't make it impossible just more difficult and does anybody really care who controls the North Carolina state house outside North Carolina anyway?

I would think Trump will if the presidential vote is close.

And of course it affects Congressional elections.

'Just makes it more difficult' - you don't really believe in democracy, do you ?

kle4

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

North Carolina Republicans just passed their new state House gerrymander that makes it impossible for Dems to win a majority in this key swing state.

The GOP will likely even win a veto-proof 3/5 majority outside of Dem wave years.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1717208918030487811

I know they all gerrymander, but it's still a disgrace.

No, they don't all do it.

A number of western states have independent redistricting commissions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States

And note the worst offenders, where maps can be redrawn by a simple majority of the legislature, which can also override a governor's veto (which would otherwise be a safeguard in the hands of a majority of the electorate) are all Republican southern states.

The GOP is an opponent of democracy.

All was not being used literally, but to mean it is widespread.

And my intended point was that even where it is widespread, that does not mean specific sides or examples cannot be particularly egregious. One was recently tossed out in, I think, Alabama, which must have been remarkably brazen even by these standards.

Malmesbury

kle4 said:

I missed this header. I like its basic premise, and the need to consider matters in context, not permit activists to be so powerful. Democracy is not meant to be the most efficient form of decision making, and we want checks and balances, but we can throw up too many roadblocks by making it too easy to hold things up as well.

And I think that is only going to move in the opposite direction to the way Alanbrooke wants.

And I find it hard to argue against a lack of government money for anyone with a legal case against the government. Should some groups be able to use goverment money to attack the government non-legally as well, with campaigns and the like? Less clear to me, but it the cliche is of a group which uses government funds to lobby the government for more money, which if true would be a bit weird.

I can think of one charity that did exactly that - lobbied governments for money to lobby governments about its chosen Good Cause.

The couple who ran it were horrible people, using it to support a luxurious lifestyle while treating their staff like shit.

kle4

Alanbrooke said:

kle4 said:

I missed this header. I like its basic premise, and the need to consider matters in context, not permit activists to be so powerful. Democracy is not meant to be the most efficient form of decision making, and we want checks and balances, but we can throw up too many roadblocks by making it too easy to hold things up as well.

And I think that is only going to move in the opposite direction to the way Alanbrooke wants.

And I find it hard to argue against a lack of government money for anyone with a legal case against the government. Should some groups be able to use goverment money to attack the government non-legally as well, with campaigns and the like? Less clear to me, but it the cliche is of a group which uses government funds to lobby the government for more money, which if true would be a bit weird.

But that is what some of the charities do. Take Stonewall, they have moved on from gay rights to trans rights which they have made an "issue". Now they keep pressing HMG and its agencies to adopt their objectives all of which will require giving them taxpayer money.

Doesn't seem right. I find it hard to think there are no cases where an organisation receiving money can reasonably still lobby, but where it seems a circular industry with the main goal of sustaining an organisation by the government to oppose the the government it seems unnecessary.

LostPassword

Nigelb said:

North Carolina Republicans just passed their new state House gerrymander that makes it impossible for Dems to win a majority in this key swing state.

The GOP will likely even win a veto-proof 3/5 majority outside of Dem wave years.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1717208918030487811

Simply glancing at the map it doesn't look particularly ridiculous. A problem the Democrats have is that demographic trends are leading to them self-gerrymandering, because their vote is becoming so highly concentrated in urban areas and/or Republican voters have completely abandoned such areas.

Only some form of proportional voting system can avoid these sorts of effects that are seen with single-member constituencies.

Alanbrooke

another_richard said:

Has Alanbrooke retired ?

Or been made redundant ?

Im sort of in semi retirement having finished an assignment end of last year. I now work alongside an investor and help him out on projects so In have more time to write articles.
The other big change is I have stopped working in a sector ( water ) where having views that dont fit the narrative just create problems. So I was lurking for a bit to avoid the digital lynch mobs and all the nonsense that comes with it.

It was an interesting experience though seeing just how badly some of our major services and infrastructure projects are run.

Malmesbury

LostPassword said:

I think the central problem is the commodification of politics.

Instead of politics being something that a large number of people in a democratic society engage in, it's now largely seen in transactional terms. Politicians are treated effectively as any other professional you might engage to provide a service, and if they fail you sack them and bring another firm in.

But that isn't how politics works. Politics is a process, and a democratic citizen's role has to go beyond voting once every few years.

How else do MPs know what tradeoffs are the right ones to make if people across the country are not part of a debate that considers those tradeoffs?

Single-issue activism has arisen as a lacklustre alternative to general political engagement, because people generally have disengaged from the political process.

Sadly, that meaning dropped out of usage at about the time that “Pistols for two in Hyde Park, and breakfast for one at White’s” stopped being a method of settling policy differences.

another_richard

A couple of standout Scottish stories this week:

A man who was removed from his role as Scotland's first period dignity officer has settled his case out of court.

Jason Grant sued the partnership that hired him last year, on the grounds of sex discrimination, with the case set to call next March.

An HM Courts and Tribunal Service spokeswoman confirmed the case had been settled and would not be proceeding as planned.

No details of the terms of settlement have been been made.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-67197945

And for those who want a retro 70s style story of a nationalised shipyard and a nationalised ferry company:

The wrong type of steel, which is more prone to corrosion, was installed on an already delayed and over-budget ferry, the boss of Ferguson Marine has admitted.

David Tydeman, the chief executive, highlighted the error as one of a number of “mistakes” that have been made during the building process.

A mild steel was used on the hydraulic systems for the MV Glen Sannox’s clamshell doors rather than stainless steel.

Tydeman told MSPs on the net zero, energy and transport committee that the bungle had been recognised but acknowledged that there were several other similar mistakes, such as the wrong type of pipes being installed, which had contributed to the delays and rising costs.

Tydeman had outlined recently how the price of delivering the two ferries was likely to be £360 million, although he had priced in a further £30 million for contingencies.

The initial contract was awarded in 2015 for £97 million and both vessels should have been delivered in 2018.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wrong-type-of-steel-used-to-build-new-calmac-ferry-x5qq32c0x

Barnesian

New House Speaker Mike Johnson making a witty speech.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-67211376

JosiasJessop

Well, that's sorted. Let's end all the cyclist versus motorist versus pedestrian debates.

"After a detailed cost analysis it is now clear that at 4 cents/mile Voyager probe is the most cost-efficient means of personal transport"

https://twitter.com/DrChrisCombs/status/1717186629712916849

Foxy

Big red wall swing from REFUK to Lab...

Labour leads by 16% in the Red Wall.

Red Wall VI (22 October):

Labour 48% (+3)
Conservative 32% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 7% (+1)
Reform UK 6% (-4)
Green 4% (-2)
Plaid Cymru 1% (–)
Other 2% (+1)

Changes +/- 23 September

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-red-wal…

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1717209401805754425?t=dq9p-8icFUTkBvd5E2C3IQ&s=19

Andy_JS

RochdalePioneers said:

Its an interesting piece but I think it misses the golden question - why?

Why do we have so many agitated and organised protests? The author of course only fingers the protests he politically disapproves of - which in part explains the why. Why do so many people feel so disconnected from our polity that their only recourse is disobedience?

The reason - surely - is the failure of politics. Our political parties have become narrowly defined cults who select morons. Hello Richard Burgon and Scott Benton. Hello to the "fuck off" abusive MPs like Lee Anderson and nearly that Tory candidate in Tamworth. Hello the authors of Britannia Unchained who think their constituents are feckless lazy scum. Hello the people who deliberately create a system where public services are ground down to dust whilst literal billions of pounds is lost in tax dodging and PPE contracts and Spiv middlemen "management".

The author fingers the protestors he doesn't like - almost nobody likes them btw - but seems nonplussed by any of the reasons behind it. They protest because politics has failed them in a country which is visibly broken and no longer works.

Read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of this week. Understand the depths of depravity we have brought this country down to. Understand that work doesn't pay the bills, there is no safety net, and the right still want to blame the millions reduced to destitution.

We have an epidemic of shoplifters. People utterly desperate, being organised by criminal gangs. Knowing that in many towns there is no police presence. Even if they get caught the chances of actually getting prosecuted are low, or of eventually going to court, and the prisons are so full that rapists can't be sent there. The Tories have created Britain as Gotham. Yet we're told not to protest?

An election would help. Removing the criminally corrupt and incompetent Tory government would help. But its not a fix because things are so broken. You want to empower people so that protest is less of an issue? Make politics work. PR - vote for what you actually want. In a refounded country where we actually have public services and a social fabric fit for purpose. Then we can put the placards down.

"criminally corrupt"?

another_richard

Barnesian said:

New House Speaker Mike Johnson making a witty speech.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-67211376

Americans are often good at public speaking.

Its the implementation that is much harder.

Casino_Royale

HYUFD said:

We should largely express political opinions through the ballot box not ranting on the streets

Don't be absolutely ridiculous.

We express them through ranting on here.

DavidL

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

We should largely express political opinions through the ballot box not ranting on the streets

Don't be absolutely ridiculous.

We express them through ranting on here.

Which let’s face it is a lot warmer.

EPG

This is a dictator's charter. Nixon's silent majority gets to ban any protests that right-wingers don't like. Two fingers to that.

Leon

Can’t match @TimS for Caucasian exoticism

But I am here. On the chic side of Ortygia under a mildly dramatic moon



I have a related question for well travelled PB-ers. I’ve got six more nights in Sicily then I must be back in Blighty. I’ve got two more here in Siracusa but then I’m wondering… maybe move on? But where? I’ve seen Palermo and the north coast and all that

I’ve not seen the interior. Is it worth it? The valley of the temples? Corleone?!

Taz

Alanbrooke said:

kle4 said:

I missed this header. I like its basic premise, and the need to consider matters in context, not permit activists to be so powerful. Democracy is not meant to be the most efficient form of decision making, and we want checks and balances, but we can throw up too many roadblocks by making it too easy to hold things up as well.

And I think that is only going to move in the opposite direction to the way Alanbrooke wants.

And I find it hard to argue against a lack of government money for anyone with a legal case against the government. Should some groups be able to use goverment money to attack the government non-legally as well, with campaigns and the like? Less clear to me, but it the cliche is of a group which uses government funds to lobby the government for more money, which if true would be a bit weird.

But that is what some of the charities do. Take Stonewall, they have moved on from gay rights to trans rights which they have made an "issue". Now they keep pressing HMG and its agencies to adopt their objectives all of which will require giving them taxpayer money.

Stonewall had to move on from gay rights as the battle was won, they needed to move onto something else to keep the cash rolling in.

HYUFD

another_richard said:

Barnesian said:

New House Speaker Mike Johnson making a witty speech.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-67211376

Americans are often good at public speaking.

Its the implementation that is much harder.

'We all know that the world is in turmoil, but a strong America is good for the entire world," Johnson said.

"We are the beacon of freedom and we must preserve this grand experiment of self governance."

He says one of the first bills he brings forward will be in defence of Israel.'

'Getting to his political priorities, Johnson said that the US government must address southern border security.

Claiming that the issue had been ignored by the Democratic-led Senate and White House, he said it was time to "come together and addres the broken border".