UK Politics

[PDQ Mobile]

This fellow in trouble over his £10 million donation is, as I understand it, the big boss of the NHS's software system(s).
And also those systems of the Prison Service.
(80 million on his database(s) apparently!
A lot of sensitive data!!)

Seeing as those entities are largely funded by the taxpayer, is he not merely giving the Conservative Party our tax cash to fund their election machine?

[Stradageek]

And they say corruption is a third world problem.

Guess he's scared a socialist government might re-nationalise the NHS and derail the gravy train

[djnotts]

^ "And they say corruption is a third world problem."

It is. It's a problem here. Conclusion plain enough.

[Psamathe]

Re: Donelan's unfounded defaming innocent scientists and us all having to pay the compensation
Just been listening to the latest "The Rest Is Politics" podcast (Alastair Campbell & Rory Stewart) and Alastair Campbell was summarising her actions with respect to the Nolan stuff and he went through each principle and that she had broken the it (ie broken them all) ... yet she is still in post (probably protected by Conservative funding source scandals).

Ian

[Jdsk]

Re: Donelan's unfounded defaming innocent scientists and us all having to pay the compensation
Just been listening to the latest "The Rest Is Politics" podcast (Alastair Campbell & Rory Stewart) and Alastair Campbell was summarising her actions with respect to the Nolan stuff and he went through each principle and that she had broken the it (ie broken them all) ... yet she is still in post (probably protected by Conservative funding source scandals).

Yes, they've simply given up on what we thought were constitutional norms.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
(1) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
(2) undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
(3) intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove ... -extremism

Hmmm... does anyone see any problems?

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
(1) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
(2) undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
(3) intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove ... -extremism

Hmmm... does anyone see any problems?

Jonathan

And no right of appeal, and Ms Donlney has recently shown how thoroughly Ministers (don't) research extremist allegations before acting.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
(1) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
(2) undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
(3) intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove ... -extremism

Hmmm... does anyone see any problems?

Jonathan

Oh, Conservative donors allegedly saying "It’s like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV and you’re just like, I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she’s there, and I don’t hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot." would seem to break section (1).

Ian

[Nearholmer]

Hmmm... does anyone see any problems?

I think it’s worth pretending that that form of words wasn’t put forward by a Government that is widely, and IMO rightly, distrusted in respect of the protection of fundamental rights and constitutional norms, and pretending that instead they were proposed by a neutral, trusted body.

IMO, if you do that, and assume that the legal tests inherent in them will be rigorously applied, they actually aren’t bad. I might prefer to see it all flipped the other way, to create a clearer set of rights, and then simply forbid anything that impinges on them, but, defining rights is always a complex subject, as prone to have unintended consequences as anything else.

[mattheus]

Hmmm... does anyone see any problems?

I think it’s worth pretending that that form of words wasn’t put forward by a Government that is widely, and IMO rightly, distrusted in respect of the protection of fundamental rights and constitutional norms, and pretending that instead they were proposed by a neutral, trusted body.

IMO, if you do that, and assume that the legal tests inherent in them will be rigorously applied, they actually aren’t bad. I might prefer to see it all flipped the other way, to create a clearer set of rights, and then simply forbid anything that impinges on them, but, defining rights is always a complex subject, as prone to have unintended consequences as anything else.

My first impressions are the same.
[And I was utterly dismayed at their most recent anti-protest legislation, so don't trust the current lot one bit. They must be fooling us both, somehow!]

[Psamathe]

Anybody surprised by the Public Accounts Committee report?

...
Rishi Sunak’s levelling up agenda is beset by an “absolutely astonishing” level of delay, and the government cannot give “any compelling examples” of what it has delivered, parliament’s spending watchdog has found.
...

Ian

[Jdsk]

Anybody surprised by the Public Accounts Committee report?

...
Rishi Sunak’s levelling up agenda is beset by an “absolutely astonishing” level of delay, and the government cannot give “any compelling examples” of what it has delivered, parliament’s spending watchdog has found.
...

The report:
https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... -spending/

And "No, I'm not".

The first recommendation is:

In its Treasury Minute response, and then by letter once every six months to this Committee, the Department should set out:
• the latest position on the amount of money that has been released to and spent by local authorities across the three funds; and
• provide an update on the progress of projects broken down by fund and project status.

This is excellent. And the principle of much greater accountability of the executive to our elected representatives is one of the most important and urgent improvements to how the UK is governed.

Jonathan

[al_yrpal]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... armer.html

Right wing on the march in EU...whilst we turn left.

Al

[Psamathe]

From the NHS thread where my response is of a more general political comment (off-topic for that thred but on-topic for this thread)

It wasn’t that long ago that anyone who campaigned against the “sell off of the NHS” was regarded as crazy lefty or unhinged socialist. [Sections relating to NHS removed]... We’re all too keen to vote for the party that promises the lowest cost of living, the least “tax burden”, the hardest driven of efficiencies and the most swinging of local government funding. And now, that’s exactly what we’ve got.
We get the governments we deserve. We ask for it and they give it us. We’ve no one to blame for the current state of affairs but ourselves. Anyone who points out that it wasn’t them that votes Conservative just isnt trying hard enough. Protests in support of our GPs, hospital doctors and nurses? None. We just stood on the doorstep and mimicked Boris and Carrie. Pathetic. As thou shalt sow, so shall you reap…

Whilst true that "we get what we vote for" for me it raises concerns that people have busy lives and cannot research every aspect of every proposal a politician presents in a manifesto. So for issues like governance there needs to be constraints about truth and presenting the complete picture & impacts and/or make things easier to call referendums.

Over the last few years for example Gov. Statistics Authority writes to PM declaring he is spouting untruths in a referendum campaing and ... said PM just ignores them and continues spouting the same untruths. What sort of "get what you vote for" results from that?

We only get to vote on party manifestos which frequently turn out to not be followed. Political parties frequently pursue laws on issues not mentioned in their manifesto to the electorate can not really feel "got what we voted for".

I do wonder about referendums being a lot easier for the electorate if we adopted more technology and streamlined the voting process. We put a lot more trust in technology for things of far higher value that our vote (eg our life savings). Streamline the voting process and the electorate would soon become happy with the process of having their say. But that does introduce the risk of tyranny of the majority, everybody voting for their self-interest rather than what is best for society.

And even for referendums to work we need truthful balanced information from our politicians - something I feel is currently lacking making our vote a bit of a farce.

Ian

[Jdsk]

Anderson and Reform:

"Speaking at a press conference, Mr Anderson said he was "prepared to gamble on myself" because he said he knew "how many people support Reform and what they have to say".

"All I want is my country back," he added." (BBC News)

Yeah, so do I pal. Only it's not the one YOU want.

+1

+2

"‘I want my country back’: what’s in a phrase?":
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co ... hrase.html

Jonathan