Reasoned

It’s grimes up north.  Protagonist of various Leave campaign groups, beneficiary of broadcasters’ desire to hand platforms to libertarian hard-right mouthpieces no matter how thick and dishonest the contribution, part-time professional northerner and full-time Git Darren Grimes persists in regurgitating the same tired trashy mantras, clichés and phrases of the hard-right confidence swindler’s handbook. 

Reading like a mini version of the despicable Turning Point fart machine, Reasoned is Grimes’ latest concocted stain created as a ruse to get more airtime and column inches.

It’s/his “mission” is to “challenge the pervasive left-wing bias in online content, much of which originates from the UK’s mainstream media and activist groups.”  Grimes complained that the politics he supports is “cancelled” on twitter.  He didn’t mean banned, he meant his politics is criticised, mocked, debunked, dissected and destroyed because it is nonsense.  Like a typical Git Grimes cannot cope with being exposed as a fraud and his trash being ripped to shreds by intelligent people.  

Echoing the aim of Tory MP Lee Rowley’s Next Generation Capitalism, Grimes is worried that so few younger people have been conned or coerced into supporting the destruction of public services, society and community and are not worshipping the gods of extreme free-market capitalist exploitation.

Grimes: “Many people – and particularly younger people – don’t have a view on the merits of conservative values simply because they haven’t been exposed to them.  Advocates of those values need to make the case for them. It is on us to ensure that the next generation is introduced to market-based solutions to the environment, housing and the cost of living crisis.”

Rowley: “The challenge for free markets, and for capitalism, is manifold: the message is tarnished, the frames are poor, and, fundamentally, the moral case for what they achieve is missing.  We need to rectify each of these shortcomings. To do that we need to understand the problem, understand what drives the coming generation, and find ways to remake the argument for an economic system that, however imperfect, is still providing the greatest opportunities in the history of mankind.”

Reasoned is nothing and will not develop into anything.  It is just another label for Grimes and his associates to enable more media access.

Links to brief descriptions of other lobby groups and think-tanks

 

Reasoned

Cummings and goings: Shocked and stunned?

Today, May 24th, is within the midst of a furore about the behaviour of the Prime Minister’s adviser Dominic Cummings regarding Covid-19 lockdown rules and associated responses from the Prime Minister and some of his cabinet colleagues.  Prevailing consensus of opinion and reaction among the public is that Cummings was wrong to avoid the lockdown rules and was more wrong to lie about his avoidance and that Johnson and colleagues were undemocratically wrong to continue to support Cummings even as more facts emerged about his behaviour.

Politicians (including some Tories), journalists (including several Tories) and an eclectic collection of centrist observers, columnists, talking heads and celebrities expressed their shock, emotionally, with dollops of incredulity.  Apparently, never in the history of British democracy has an elected Prime Minister behaved as Johnson did recently and never have these keen observers ever witnessed such venality and contempt.

Some of the conservative and centrist analysis of Johnson and co.’s mendacious obfuscation, misdirection and evasion was accurate but infused exhaustively with hypocrisy and faux surprise.  Conservatives wanted a Tory government regardless of who was its leader and they knew where Johnson sat politically, to whom he chose to be accountable and were fully aware of his abject lack of integrity, professionalism, moral compass and honesty.  How can they expect their protestations of surprise and despair at his decisions and performance following Cummings’ transgressions are reactions that could be accepted as genuine? 

Centrists are aghast at what happened, or didn’t happen; they announced the birth of a new epoch whose key feature is depravity that eschews civilisation, society and democracy.  Shocked and stunned into stupor, the centrist kittens couldn’t comprehend the creation and evolution of such a calamitous and evil government and they were amazed at the fantastic grotesque that materialised inexplicably in front of them.  Knowledge of Johnson and cohorts’ previous acts, words and objectives disappeared from the centrists’ memories as did any concepts of libertarian hard-right proposals for the fiscal economy. 

Centrists clung to an imagined prediction, founded in quicksand, that Boris Johnson, a typical product of the Eton machine with a long history of lying, offensiveness and obedience to the desires of extremist capitalist exploiters, would magically transform into a different person when elected Prime Minister.  They chose to cling to that fantasy because, for the awful centrist gloop, anything but socialism was, and is, the only principle.  Johnson, who, in a just society, would have been imprisoned indefinitely long ago, was preferable for the centrists than a genuine shift toward socialism.

Astonishment and disillusionment were real consequences of how the Tory government behaved regarding Cummings’ lockdown breaches but even some of the reactions speckled with veracity were displayed by people who chose to stifle their acquired knowledge of what Johnson and colleagues were and chose to resist easy deductive analysis of how the government would proceed and conduct itself.

Johnson and Cummings, two like-minded characters with similar agenda, are, and have always been, opposed demonstrably to a functioning civilised society.  Their faith lies elsewhere as gofers for economic extremists.  Their aims and ambitions were always visible brightly but wilful ignorance by observers consumed the latter so completely that they believed their own cries of amazement at what the former said and did.

Factually, the current British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is exactly as he was expected to be.  He is dim, a sociopath and an employee of a capitalist elite who want to use him and to use Brexit as tools to steal Britain from its inhabitants.  Cummings, an experienced manipulator and conman, is an important cog though not indispensable.  Nothing that Cummings said or did was surprising and nothing that Johnson or his cabinet colleagues said subsequently was surprising.  They are what they are.

The Tory government’s utter contempt for the public, and for the law, is reprehensible and it is right to be violently angry in response.  However, conservatives’ and centrists’ responses are not grounded in consistency.

BarnardCastle
Barnard Castle

 

Cummings and goings: Shocked and stunned?

BBC restyled Johnson/Marr interview as PR for Johnson

Boris Johnson, a coward, does not want to be interviewed by Andrew Neil for his early evening BBC show.  Neil, though not an expert political interviewer, is a keener questioner of politicians than most in his profession.

Johnson prefers the less challenging Andrew Marr who has a deserved reputation for sitting quietly enabling Tories to prattle on before he moves on, without riposte, to the next question.

Prior to the terror attack on London Bridge on Friday (29th November), in which two people died, BBC stated that if Johnson refused to be interviewed by Andrew Neil then the former’s pre-planned chat with Andrew Marr would be cancelled.  Following the attack the BBC agreed to the Marr chat with Johnson without any precondition of commitment to a Neil interview.

The BBC’s rapid capitulation to Johnson’s whims is disappointing but it is actually worse than it seems.  Not only is Johnson dodging what would be assumed to be a thorough examination by Neil and enjoying an relatively unchallenged opportunity to regurgitate soundbites and lies on the Marr show but, now, the Marr interview will be even less difficult than usual because Johnson will be allowed to adopt an uninterrupted faux Prime Ministerial persona when discussing the terrorist attack.

A statement from the BBC’s PR department (below) admitted the Marr chat had been restyled from an election campaign interview with a party leader to a Prime Minister’s interview.

BBCJohnsonMarrStatement.jpg

Clearly, if the BBC or any other broadcaster wanted to speak to the Prime Minister about the terror attack then they could do so – all broadcasters including BBC had such interviews on Friday and Saturday with Johnson and with members of his most recent cabinet including the Home Secretary.

The Marr interview did not need to be reactivated.  However, the crucial point is that its reactivation was described by the BBC as “in the public interest” meaning the BBC is pretending that it is not part of electioneering.  The final sentence in the BBC’s statement made clear that “detailed scrutiny” might be a feature of a Neil interview but it will not be part of today’s chat with Marr.

It is now a worse scenario re. Purdah than Johnson dodging scrutiny from Neil in favour of a nicer chat with Marr.  The restyling of the Marr chat by the BBC as Prime Minister’s response to a terror attack has handed Johnson an contested platform to do with as he wishes right in the middle of the election campaign.

Johnson knows what he has been given by complicit BBC and he will use it to try to help the Tories election campaign. 

His predecessor was in a similar position in 2017: Theresa May’s used terror attack as shameless electioneering.

BBC restyled Johnson/Marr interview as PR for Johnson

General election 2019: Humanity versus conservatism

This election is not a game. 

There have been nine and a half years of Tory destruction of society and public services.  

Tories see everything in anyone’s life as an opportunity to enable the enrichment of the wealthiest and most despicable parasites.  People need healthcare, education and, often, some welfare assistance.  People with disabilities need more assistance than others.  Elderly people need more assistance than others.  Tories see the need, they see how vital some public services are and they interpret what they see as a bottomless trough to feed exploiters via privatisation.

For Tories, a disabled person, a chronically or terminally ill person, an injured person, an elderly person in need of care, a child in need of education or a homeless person is just a potential windfall for the elite few inhumane beneficiaries of a corrupt system.  

Via distribution of taxes or costs for individual users, privatisation parasites gorge themselves.  Their supply of unearned income is ceaseless because of the necessity of what people are paying for.  Most of the money handed to the Tories’ friends and clients is not spent on the services for which it is supposedly intended.  It is siphoned off by companies created solely for that purpose and they are assisted fully by the Tories.  Private healthcare businesses, private care services and facilities, private prison and probation services, school academies and private welfare assessment businesses exist only to collect tax-payers’ and/or users’ cash.  It is a scam preying on necessity, on life.  Tories are enablers of exploitation of humanity. 

Effects of Tory ethos toward vital public services are catastrophic.  Destitute people are starving to death, people with disabilities are dying due to removal of vital financial assistance, homelessness is increasing rapidly, once-eradicated diseases resurfaced due to malnutrition, very ill people are dying in under-staffed hospitals while waiting for healthcare and number of suicides has increased due to lack of sufficient mental healthcare.  It is a war on humanity.  It is a cull.

This election is not a game. 

It is not about an extra percentage point of taxation.
It is not about whether or not Trident is replaced.
It is not about how many trees can be planted.
It is not about nationalisation of internet access.
It is not about the dead cats thrown down by Tories and complicit media.
It is not about whether there should be a second referendum on membership of the EU.
it is not about Russian interference in the democratic process.
It is not about what is written on the sides of buses.

This election is about life and death.

A Tory government with a majority after December 12th will enact a Brexit that is intended to collapse to a no deal Brexit.  Subsequently, the Tories will sign deals with voracious gluttons to hand over what is left of the great advances in public services and society made since 1945 alongside empowerment of enhanced tax avoidance for the wealthiest.  The UK will become a tax haven for the elite and everyone else will rent their lives without adequate healthcare, education, welfare provision or homes.

Conservatism is the enemy of humanity.

Vote.  Vote for humanity.

 

General election 2019: Humanity versus conservatism

Tories and censorship of broadcasters: Channel 4 climate debate

Channel 4 hosted a party leaders’ debate on climate crisis yesterday (November 28th).  Two party leaders, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, chose to dodge the debate because they feared further exposure of their respective commitments to climate destruction.

Tory MP Michael Gove, formerly an utter failure as Environment Secretary, tried to trespass into the Channel 4 studio as an uninvited stand-in for absent Johnson.  Gove and Tory party had been informed earlier that invitations to partake in the debate were specifically for party leaders.  Gove’s childish actions were a stunt.  He was accompanied by reality TV contestant Stanley Johnson, father of the Prime Minister.

The motivation for Gove’s silly stunt was to provide spurious justification for a censorious assault on Channel 4 as a response to its news output not being as unbalanced in favour of the Tories as other broadcasters’ output. 

Before the (live) broadcast of the debate Johnson’s Director of Communications Lee Cain, formerly employed as the Daily Mirror chicken, sent a pre-written (before Gove’s pantomime appearance) and absurd letter to broadcasters’ regulator Ofcom complaining about the denial of entry to the debate for Gove. 

The letter – screenshot at foot of blog – misrepresented events leading up to the debate, it selected random quotes from Ofcom’s regulatory code for broadcasters as a ruse to support the complaint and, crucially, chose to omit any reason why Boris Johnson had not accepted his invitation to attend the debate.  Misdirection and concoction were the key components of the letter.

As is normally true in charlatans’ letters such as this, the final sentence was the most pertinent.

If Ofcom takes the view that this matter could not be considered until post-broadcast, I would request that this complaint is assessed subsequent to the broadcast, given the unfortunate precedents that Channel 4’s actions may set.”

The clear message that the chicken man wanted to send, not to Ofcom but to any reader particularly any broadcaster, was to set a precedent of government dictating to broadcasters what should and should not happen in political programming.  The threat was clear.

Lee Cain’s letter to Ofcom
LeeCainLetter1
LeeCainLetter2.png

Tories and censorship of broadcasters: Channel 4 climate debate

BBC’s Kuenssberg’s statement on Tory plans for NHS

A document of discussions between UK and US governments for a post-Brexit trade deal was published by the Labour party today (November 27th).  It showed clear willingness by the Tories to acquiesce to demands of predatory US businesses eyeing UK public services particularly the NHS.

Unsurprisingly, as a response to the documents’s contents, most of the media adopted a derisory perspective as a facet of damage limitation for the Tories.  BBC’s veteran reporter Laura Kuenssberg’s analysis typified the majority media tack.

Looks like Labour’s secret documents were actually uploaded online at the end of October.  Which noone, including journalists (hands up) seemed to notice.  There is a lot of interesting stuff in the documents which are mainly not about the health service.  Documents show there has been a lot of work going on between US and UK officials about potential trade deal after Brexit and show how much the US side would push to gain that could be hugely controversial here; for example, weakening rules on food labeling and lengthening patents on medicines which could make drugs more expensive here.  Interestingly, documents also suggest hopes on the US side of making quick progress with a deal partly for political advantage for Trump, even if the chances of getting a deal done by 2020 by end of his first term are low.  But, important to note, the documents do not show final agreement on UK side, and don’t confirm Labour’s claim the government is trying to sell off the NHS – documents go up to July 19 covering Theresa May, not Boris Johnson’s time in office.  But documents will be used, no doubt. as evidence that discussions have been had and US making demands will be used again and again by Labour in what’s left of the campaign as a bid to get onto safer political territory for them that’s trickier for the Tories.  No government ministers appear to have been present apart from Liam Fox at the first meeting although officials, of course, are always very well aware of what ministers want and don’t want.” – Kuenssberg 27th Nov.

Her comments encapsulated every angle to be taken to downplay the significance of the document’s details and to protect the Tories from inquisition and criticism.  Kuenssberg demonstrated her skill as an establishment public relations operative.

She began by dismissing the media’s wilful avoidance of the document (available for a month) as merely a small oversight.  Her intent was to encourage inference that the document wasn’t considered important.

As a ruse to lessen concern, Kuenssberg mentioned that NHS discussion was a part of and not the whole document but that is neither surprising nor does it diminish the fact that NHS was discussed.  Even one sentence about the NHS in transcripts of trade deal negotiations would be problematic.  

Possible removal of food safety regulations and higher drug costs were described as “hugely controversial here [the UK].”  Controversial was an odd word to use to describe a matter of life and death.  In USA “controversial” food safety and drug pricing lead directly to deaths.

Kuenssberg observed keenly that the documents didn’t show any “final agreements” on trade deals.  Well, of course they didn’t; they were discussions of desire and statements of intent.  She knows the difference but pretended to not know in order to distract the reader.  The intent of both the US and Tory governments is devastating for the NHS.

For some reason she made the point that discussions transcripted in the documents took place during Theresa May’s tenure as Prime Minister.  Kuenssberg knows that Boris Johnson is even more likely than May to give the privateers what they want.  Equally, she knows that the discussions were (as is normally the case) between ministers’ staff and so her point that Liam Fox was the only minister present was a superfluous point.

Her dismissal of Labour’s analysis of the document as “safer political territory for them that’s trickier for the Tories” showed the distance between the public and the media bubble.  For Kuenssberg, NHS is just a talking point not people’s lives.  She sees the election as a competition of presentation and not a choice between humanity and conservatism.

Related blog
Kuenssberg and Jeremy Hunt

BBC’s Kuenssberg’s statement on Tory plans for NHS

NHS destruction is a key component of Tory Brexit

Today (November 27th) Labour party published an unredacted document that revealed details of Tory intent with respect to the NHS and any post-Brexit trade deal with the USA.  In particular, the document showed Tories’ willingness to negotiate anything as part of such a trade deal. 

(The document was online for a month but British media chose to pretend not to notice it.)

For anyone who views the Tories accurately there was nothing surprising in the document’s content.  For Boris Johnson and his gang, Brexit, with or without a deal, will be an opportunity to give away what remains of Britain’s public services.  The Tories prefer the no deal option and the current plan for negotiations if Britain leaves the EU on January 31st would lead inexorably to no deal late next year.

No deal Brexit will be a windfall opportunity for the worst and most destructive parasites.  Disaster capitalists and market gamblers would revel in the planned pseudo-chaotic fire-sale, enriching themselves at everyone else’s expense.  Tories will assist the handover of public services with necessary associated removal of workers’ rights, health and safety regulations and legal protections and rights.

The NHS is the biggest prize the Tories have to hand out.  In USA ill health or injury lead to bankruptcy for patients and wealth for the healthcare industry; for those with insufficient money to pay, death comes early.  US pharma industry, health insurers and healthcare providers make huge profits and they want to do the same in the UK.  The intent of the Tories is to help them as much as they can.  Health Secretary Matt Hancock, like his predecessor Jeremy Hunt did, works for US healthcare industry and for its PR teams including Institute of Economic Affairs.

A key consequence of the Tories’ aims for Brexit is that they do not care about their political futures in parliament.  For the few beneficiaries and their Tory assistants, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of a bad deal or no deal Brexit overrides the downside of any future problems for the Tory party.  Destruction of the NHS in the next parliament, if the Tories win the general election on December 12th, could annihilate the Tories’ electoral chances in later elections but they don’t care.  Johnson, Raab, Hancock, Rees-Mogg, Patel, Javid, etc. are working for a one-off event and the riches for the few that such an event would produce.  Afterward, they will scarper.

Related blog
Matt Hancock and IEA
Disaster capitalists and no deal Brexit
Boris Johnson: Etonian conman

NHS destruction is a key component of Tory Brexit