Category: Politics

For once I have to applaud the ingenuity of the government. They come up with a policy that is illegal knowing it will not work due to international law. They know labour will oppose it. But thrust of the policy is populist – when it is opposed in Parliament they can spend weeks claoming that Labour believe the opposite of their policy as they opposed it in Parliament. The Mail and Telegraph, Express, etc. echo this view. The people are conned into thinking the problem is therefore created by labour. Genius! The Illegal Refugees Bill is a perfect example. It will never get past the courts – but the political gain will have been made.

The trashing of EU laws we often created and supported could lead to trade bans by the EU – who will then blamed (I am thinking agricultural and food products here). Perhaps something like some American products being banned by the courts – blame leftie lawyers rather than the attempt to subvert food standards and undermine farmers. State that Labour wants to increase food prices rather than the greedy supermarkets who have massively increased profits this year.

The Trade Union Bill to undermine and inhibit strikes is probably against Human Rights Legislation – make it more onerous so it will definitely fail in the courts and then blame Labour for supporting Union Barons and strikes that disrupt peoples lives, thus totally diverting attention fromnm their poor wages and restrictive policies.

Is he really the only Tory MP who will refuse to vote for the illegal migration bill on the grounds that it breaks international law and human rights conventions we helped establish.

The British Public in general want the refugee situation sorted to stop the deaths to migrants and the cost of hotels, etc. BUT not at the cost of breaaking laws and treaties or failing to meet our international obligations. Can someone also point out to Braverman that we have a labour shortage and a demographic situation which will make it worse. Most of the refugees are young fit and healthy.

Reinstates Lineker and says it will produce new guidelines. I wonder who they chose for the committee to decide new guidelines? I understand a need for impartiality, but surely only in news and current affairs departments. It certainly should not apply to free lancers. Will all paid members of the BBC have to state their political allegiances? If the list was biased towards labour (likely given the lack of talent revealed by Tories), would they encourage positive discrimination?

Basically the Government seems to have pushed/manipulated the BBC into supporting its Culture Wars. This one seems to have misfired – very few are suggesting that Lineker shouldbe muzzled – freedom of speech. I have not heard a sensible argument in sipport of the BBC. If he was a bit out of order (in some peoples opinions) with his wording – would he still be in trouble for stating that “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people …….?” .

Meanwhile Lee 30[ Anderson shows no remorse at the photo od a DEAD YOUNG CHILD on a beach – stating that he should not have been here anyway!

I think the governments culture wars may have scored an own goal. Knowing there is very little good news about their actions (economy, NHS, education, police, water, fuel bills, environment, inflation, food banks, to name a few), did the ERG persuade the government to attack Lineker? He certainly seems to have been selected when Lord Sugar was allowed to post against Mick Lynch. Easy target? Left’ish wing football pundit, there would be a short outbirst and everyone would agree with Braverman and Sunal that refugees need to be deported fast.

This is not how it panned out. Firstly Lineker is obviously a much respectec figure amongst his collegues as the come out in sympathy – ruining the schedules for the weekend. Secondly there has been an outcry about the policy proposed by the government which has been stronger than expected. Thirdly the whole concept of freedom of speech – many people are disgusted at the gagging order put forward by the BBC. Fouthly the impariality concept is being questioned, why has Farage been on BBCQT so often, why has the chairman of the BBC funded the CParty? And perhaps more importantly the role of a public service broadcaster and its interaction with the government is being questioned. Surely and respectable journalist should be holding the governmet of the day to account. If the tories have been in power for most of the time recently there may seem to be a perceived bias -they should welcome it. Where are the satirists now days? Would Spitting Image be censored?

Any form of management needs to be questioned and interogated, what ever the level. Governments with a whopping majority need it more than most. Yes the opposition needs interogation too. Avoiding criticism is leading to poor decision making and poor appointmts and policy.

I am not sure Gary Lineker was correct in his use of the analogy of 1930’s Germany, but subsequent events have supported his assertion. The BBC is in disarray, mired in controvercy over appointments and a lack of objectivity by some reporters. Personnally I would rather watch Channel 4 or 5 News – even Sky News seems to be more impartial.

Where does this leave me in the discussions with a friend who thought Lineker was playing into the hands of the government?ERG. Attention would be diverted from energy bills, inflation, and a myriad of other incompetencies. To some extent he is correct, but to all our surprise this has quickly become not just about Lineker, not just about refugees, not even just about the BBC, but about our fundamental freedom of speech. Martin Lewis is bound to be even more outspoken about energy bills soon – he has a regular Radio 5 slot – will they ban him – his comments are certainly not what the government wants to here.

At the end of the day, when the fat lkady sings, it will be about the voters. The rabid anti-refugee cohort will be unaffected or even more strident – who cares! I suspect that the majority of the red wall voters will be also unaffected, although discussions in the pub or club may increase. Somehow Lineker manages to come across as a local lad who made good. He is not ostentacious or claiming privilege – he was in the stands at Leicester on Saturday, not the directors box. Lineker has created a situation where his concern for migrants can be aired. Whilst I am sure that the tories would like this discussion to go for ages, and deflect from other issues, they seem to be staking everything on this one issue and whilst surveys show that maybe 50% or more have sympathy with them, Linekers impact may reduce the importance of the issue (i.e. many will stop and think does he have a point here).

Whilst on refugees – Braverman said, correctly that there were 100 million refugees in the world at present – correct! That they all want to come here is less provable! (75% are still in their own countries). The billions she quotes suggests she knows something about climate change – or she is just bullshitting. However back to 100 million, or even 25 million – surely we have a responsibility to help these people. I will open myself to criticism by saying that many of our actions of the past have made is more responsible for the fate of these people.

Even current climate refugees are partially due to our past excesses. It matters not that we were ignorant about climate change until 1896 – no this is not a typo!

On misdeeds of the past – should we be accountable? My latest thought is that yes – if the current generation has benefitted from past misdemeanours? If someone nurdered your granny and stole a very valuable ring – should the perpertators descendants benefit from the crime – or should they just say sorry (or not) and pocket the cash.

Lewis Goodall has made very strong statement on James O’Sob, Sky News condemn the BBC, JamesCampbell crucify’s interviewer, Liverpool and Bournemouth refuse to have BBC reporters at interviews, MOTD has no pundits. Whilst Labour tory Yvette Cooper says he was wrong! It was a personal tweet account!

Maybe Gary Lineker has done more to publicise this cruel and corrupt government than anyone else.

Another rant at the tories.

Shapps says that he is Jewish (Irrelevant) and says that Lineker supports criminal gangs bringing criminals across the Channel (a lie).

Why is it acceptable for a BBC presenter to comment that Stanley Johnson “only broke his wifes nose once”! FFS this is horrendous. Lord Sugar has a go at Mick Lynch – presumably upset at his ability to answer questions coherently and honestly, unlike the feckless lot in government. “The Newsagents” podcast makes a similar point about that the BBC, as a “public service broadcaster” shoukd be holding the government to account. Journalists should ask difficult questions – but this government would find it difficult to remember their name and address.

Why is it only the Guardian that states that 500 died last year due to underfunding of NHS on basics like ambulances.

I will continue later, after a cuppa!

Gary must be proud to have made the front page of the Daily Faii for all the right reasons. Even the Prime Ministers Office has commented, along with the rabid right of the tories. As Emily Maitlis has stated the government and the BBC were happy for him to comment on human rights in Qatar but not this country. The press reaction, that of government ministers and MP’s shows how far freedom of speech is being eroded. The BBC has said trhat it will have discussions about his comments, but have also saod there is a difference between a football commentator and the news and public affairs workers.

Maybe the Tories need to look at the composition of their focus groups. A study of 24 countries found that the UK was in the top 4 in considering homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, suicide and casual sex to be acceptable. Only on the death penalty did we end up mid-table with 55% considering it to be acceptable or potentially acceptable. I guess this is down to mainly older generations and the right wing press. Interestingly Russia, Germany, Indonesia and Nigeria were more opposed to the DP than the UK.

An analysis of the report shows that it reflects a changing society. Homosexuality is seen as acceptable by 65% and divorce by 63% and abortion by 47% (USA stat is less than half that of UK). That also does not mean that the remainder were against it – I will research tis figure. Yet again we seem to have more in common with Europe than America.

So the desperate Tories are rolling out yet another despicable scheme to appeal to the many racists in this country. It is easy really – the government sets up bureaus in its embassies around the world that can process applications for asylum. Those approved could come here and be provided with accomodation and work permits – they would start contributing to our economy immediately. Those who are then coming illegally could be processedbquickly and returned. Without the legal route nothing will work. I just do not understand the British Press attitude of victim blaming. Prior to Brexit we did not have the Channel small boats – just the lorries and train. Rishi Sunak is back to appeasing the right wing of his party again. Starmer should be in Paris and Brussels negotiating a sensibke response from all.