If the Tories General Election pledge was to NOT sell of the NHS
Does that make the Election Result null and void ?
Former UK trade minister and current Conservative MP Dr. Liam Fox has been named as the source of hacked trade documents released during last year's British elections. "There is an ongoing criminal investigation into how the documents were acquired, and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this point," a UK …
"...have a referendum of the English asking us whether WE want Scotland to be independent..."
Just to clarify, so you're saying English nationalism is OK, but Scottish nationalism is -- what? traitorous or something?
You don't have to answer, I already know what you think.
Just to clarify, so you're saying English nationalism is OK, but Scottish nationalism is -- what? traitorous or something?
Well, Sturgeon is saying the exact opposite. Scottish nationalism is essential, English nationalism is a disastrous error. Can't have it both ways.
Actually the real problem is that the word "English" is taken to be synonymous with "British". Now I don't really mind being British (although I would feel better about it if I didn't think the term actually meant English nationalism) but I don't think my community's views are being upheld in a system that favours English nationalism. I don't feel English. Brexit is a case in point. I don't know anyone who wanted to leave the EU. A quick glance at the electoral map shows that pattern right across Scotland. I know that there are communities in other parts of the UK where the opposite is true, but hey it would be boring if we were all the same.
PS my constituency hasn't had a tory MP since the 1930's.
"The members of the EU are still independent."
Tell that to the Greeks, the Italians, the Catalonians, the rest of Spain and all the other areas that have been told they are no longer in control of their own country... I'm sure they will be delighted to hear that the bureaucrats in Brussels are going to stop interfering in local affairs that are nothing at all to do with what was SUPPOSED TO BE A TRADE BODY.
Even Eire, long held up as an example to the UK as how we SHOULD be dealing with the EU, is now starting to find out how "independent" they are really allowed to be - and meanwhile the German banks start sticking two fingers up at Brussels and nothing happens.
Nobody is forcing you to buy American, but where do you think Apple products come from? (Well, made in China obviously since Apple realised it was cheaper to offshore production to the lowest bidder). You will still be able to buy your overpriced fizzy French water and wines - unless the freedom-loving, pro-consumer choice pen-pushers in Brussels decide to punish us with high taxes just because they can.
And they surely wouldn't be that petty, would they?
No because manifesto pledges aren't binding.... Kientha
Is that not then fraudulent ...... and akin to a Parliamentary democracy treating the electorate as if useless/useful fools which they can fleece with practical immunity and virtual impunity?
Hmmm ..... that's dangerous and certainly not intelligent.
"akin to a Parliamentary democracy treating the electorate as if useless/useful fools which they can fleece with practical immunity and virtual impunity?"
If you missed the Blair years you should definitely look it up. Basically if he stated he was going to do something or something was going well it was the opposite. But yes we are lacking some integrity in the UK gov system for a while.
Well the problem is the entire system is underpinned by the principle that you vote for an individual to represent you at the national level. That individual may belong to a party, or they may be an independent and whoever can form the largest group of MPs is the government. The system isn't designed for the public to vote for a party or for the policies of a party. The disconnect is in how voters treat the system where they vote for a party rather than a person, or in recent years vote for the PM rather than the individual MP or party. Simply making manifesto pledges binding would not address the underlying issue and would itself be contradictory. Instead, you would need a system akin to proportional representation with binding pledges with an independent body to assess this which has it's own downsides.
If manifesto pledges aren't binding, should they all, by law, contain the simple true disclaimer .......
This press release includes forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned that these forwardlooking statements are only predictions and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside the control of the Party. Therefore, actual results may differ materially and adversely, in terms of quantum and timing, from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. The Party undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forwardlooking statements for any reason except as may be required by law.
Or would such immediately render Parliamentary democracy a fully recognised farce and a phantom force ?
"No because manifesto pledges aren't binding"
And, yet, the number of times I've had to explain this to grown adults is scary.
Listen: Politicians lie. They lie because they can, because there's nothing stopping them doing so, because people give them power on the basis of those lies, and because there's no comeback to lying except possibly in a few years time not being put back into power.
That's it. That's the entirety of UK, US, etc. politics. "Everything is made up and the points don't matter".
That's why anyone who says "I voted X because they're gonna do Y" is an idiot, in my opinion. There's absolutely no legal ramification if they don't. None whatsoever. They can lie with impugnity, not do anything at all or - worse - do the exact opposite of what they said, and nothing happens.
They get sacked because "people don't like them" or something like that, not because of any failure of them to carry out their promises - nobody *ever* punishes them for that.
And while you have such a system, guess what kind of people gravitate to that kind of position? Liars. People with no intention of doing the job, beyond what they need to convince you to not throw them out (which is a very low bar indeed, apparently).
And then people ask me why I don't have any interest in politics. It's because it's like watching a kindergarten quibble over whether they said it was the other person's go or not, and whether they said they would let them have a go, have a go today, have a go eventually, or even have a go at all. It's honestly that bad. And even with a supposed opposition that's supposed to be holding them to account, it just turns into bickering and nonsense and more lies.
Until we hold them accountable, until manifestos are binding (with independent review of progress!), and until people start to vote them out - outside of voting cycles - for doing a BAD JOB, it's all a bit pointless really.
And it's really not difficult: "Please submit your proposals for the next four years with progress indicators, timelines, regular success targets, budgeting and contingencies. We'll check in at quarterly intervals to ensure you're on track and, if not, why not, and whether that's justified" The government is actually worse-run than a small project at a tiny company.
And yet, they have power over you. They can warp your life, or make it better, or destroy the country, or try to improve it. We know that MPs are aware of the opinions in their constituencies and actively try to help people there, if only to get voted in again.
Voters have a lot of ways of supporting good, decent MPs who actually listen to their constituents and who take up their causes. Many a back-benchers have persistently, over time, stubbornly advocated for something that has finally come to pass. My previous was a tremendously good bloke, savvy on IT because that was his background, and I know he righted many wrongs and helped people and causes.
To call all MPs liars is simply the lazy way not to take responsibility or to hold them to theirs. Its refuse to be an active, ethical participant in the only system we have, however flawed it is, and however dubious so many people in it. Our whole UK society is flawed, with many liars and crooks and deep holes of corruption. Shall we opt out of it too? Not participate? Live like hermits? We are all accountable.
As others have pointed out, the Daily Telegraph managed to published these documents TWO DAYS before “the Russians” “hacked” them from the former-disgraced-defence-minister‘s Gmail....
Sometimes stories are more made-up than anything, I suppose they always have been, just nowadays we occasionally notice
I would, FSVO "robust". I've got a friend in the Cabinet Office who says their mail system is so secure it's been next to impossible to use during WFH. As a civil servant he's forbidden from forwarding anything to his personal mail account, but the politicians do so for convenience, hence Liam Fox's little mishap.
I wonder if he used TalkTalk for his personal mail?
I too have a couple of friends who have worked for the government, dealing with classified data. Both have strictly enforced rules detailing exactly how and where they can access the data. I don't know the exact details (nor do I want to), but as I understand it, they are only allowed to access the data on computers airgapped from the internet, and they aren't allowed any devices on premises (these have to be handed in to security on entry).
While there are different levels of classification, their rule was simple. Only non classified data was allowed on computers with internet access.
Now, I understand that MPs have to travel, and they may need to access classified data outside the country, but they still shouldn't be storing classified data on publicly accessible systems.
"the Government has very robust systems in place to protect the IT systems of officials and staff."
It's possible this is not actually a lie, it's a Humphreyesque avoidance of telling the truth. So economical with la vérité that there's no vérité visible to the naked eye.
Yes, government has very robust systems to protect the IT systems of officials and staff. However politicians don't like the handcuffs that imposes, so they set up and use their own email systems. They rely either on email systems provided by their constituency or just wave their credit card around until someone takes pity and supplies them with a shonky webmail service. Then they transfer all the documents that should remain on government systems to their private email, so they can work on it using their iPad on the train.
The "robust" systems get a good ignoring. Worse than that, it's reasonably common for ministers to give their passwords to other people so that they can answer mail on their behalf. I suspect that the spearphishing attack on Liam Fox was of that nature.
"Former UK trade minister and current Conservative MP Dr. Liam Fox"
I think you'll find that his actual title is "The disgraced former defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox" - it's a well worn title with a proud history of Tory defence secretaries who have been disgraced.
Whatever happened to "The disgraced former defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox and his close friend Adam Werrity"? IIRC the latter gentleman was rather close to various foreign intelligence agencies. Possibly he's no longer around to give the benefit of his experience?
I'm not going to knock him for falling for a spear phishing attack, it's not like a Nigerian Prince or anything. But why did he have official papers in his personal email?
Now it's too late to sack him, he's already gone. Given the obsession with secrecy in government/civil service circles there ought to be the Official Secrets Act available.
why did he have official papers in his personal email
Presumably for the same reason lots of his MoD meetings were attended by an unvetted personal friend: it suited his convenience and he doesn't care about the rules.
It's a real suprise he isn't still in the cabinet.
He probably emailed it to himself so he could read it on his phone and ensure he couldn't lose a paper copy someplace. We'll looks like he managed to lose it everywhere instead.. Lol. The "don't you know who I am" brigade are their own worst enemies. And... he probably renamed it with a txt extension to get it out.
"It is completely predictable that the Russian Intelligence Services are targeting those working to combat the coronavirus pandemic,"
The Russians have been messing with our (and many other nations') social, scientific, economic and political life for over 200 years. We should expect that as it's part of the culture.
So the Russians were solely responsible for the Tories winning the Election, just to cause trouble by getting us out of the EU (where, coincidentally, we can no longer interfere in EU decision-making and therefore making the whole garbage pile run so much easier.)
And now you're saying it was the Russians hacking (out)Fox(ed) who gave the Liebour Party the documents relating to flogging the NHS to the Americans, which was supposed to make sure the Tories lost the Election.
So, dear Remoaners, which is it - did the Russians try to fix the elections so the Tories won or did the Russians try to fix it so the Tories lost? You cannot have it both ways!
The Russians simply want to spread disorder and division.
Classic, ancient divide and conquer. The tactic is thousands of years old.
Splitting the UK from the EU hurts the EU and severely damages the UK. Proving that Tory ministers can't be arsed to follow basic security damages other nations confidence in negotiations, resulting in worse economic damage to the UK. Showing that Corbyn would use Russian-provided intel damages confidence in the Opposition.
By refusing to think, you're playing into Putin's hands.
"Splitting the UK from the EU hurts the EU and severely damages the UK."
Vs the possibility of installing a marxist and communist as the government leaders in the UK who would have scrapped the nuclear missiles (but made the subs anyway as a bribe to the unions). Sounds like the Russians would have done well by helping Labour to inflict maximum damage. I remember labour were going to negotiate the best deal possible with the EU, then reject it.
Labour was going to negotiate the best deal possible with the EU, and then recommend it's members reject it and brexit if it FELL SHORT OF SIMPLY REMAINING IN THE EU.
So, they'd get the best deal possible for the leavers to chew on, but if it was still better to stay in the EU, they wouldn't throw the country down the shitter.
Of course, you know this, but it's been a long time since you've posted anything other than lies and gross distortions.
The last time I offended a brexitter with facts, my family were threatened, and he attempted to dox me (the moron posted an address I've never had any association with)
( N.B. This wasn't on "The Register", and I'm not accusing you of being a danger, but I'm not tempting fate again)
Besides, unless your real name is Code Junky, you are posting anonymously too.
Anyway, it's interesting how when you have no answer to valid comments, you resort to shouting "troll!"
"The last time I offended a brexitter with facts, my family were threatened, and he attempted to dox me (the moron posted an address I've never had any association with)"
Ok I get that and sorry for your experience. I do have a troll on here and your comment seemed to have a similar tone.
"Labour was going to negotiate the best deal possible with the EU, and then recommend it's members reject it and brexit if it FELL SHORT OF SIMPLY REMAINING IN THE EU."
Negotiating from a position of being on their knees is not a negotiating position. If you are going to negotiate then the other side must believe such a negotiation will result in the outcome. To negotiate to then have another referendum to a population that already voted leave and with a party who have members who will still campaign to leave even after negotiation doesnt work. The EU would give nothing as it would be dangerous. Any offer then rejected would be used as a weapon by members who dont want the EU federation.
"So, they'd get the best deal possible for the leavers to chew on, but if it was still better to stay in the EU, they wouldn't throw the country down the shitter."
The voters had a choice of in or out and out looked better. This is a referendum offered many times but withdrawn because the voter would vote to leave. You might think its throwing the country down the shitter but others see the shitter being the EU membership.
"Of course, you know this, but it's been a long time since you've posted anything other than lies and gross distortions."
This is where the amusing trolling is because the accusation needs no fact and if you tried I would prove you wrong which is where the AC handle provides you immunity from looking as stupid as your comment suggests (feel like throwing one back at you).
Well, it's been the hard-line remainers that refuse to accept a democratic decision who have been insisting 'the Russians did it' for the last 4 years, with regard to the Brexit vote.
The same people that routinely resort to name-calling of pro-leave voters. A number of such people routinely post (and post such insults) here.
The Russians are not trying to push some ideology here, they're neither for not against brexit. Their aim is solely to cause maximum chaos and damage. So yes, they would happily support both brexit (causing chaos and terrible damage to the UK and some to the EU as well) and then try to damage the tories badly enough that, say, Corbyn wins, almost certainly causing yet more chaos and damage to the UK in the process.
Martin, you forgot to demand a third Downvote for my posting as AC.
But since trying to hold a reasoned discussion on the subject of us leaving the EU ALWAYS ends with those who wanted to stay resorting to insults and refusing to actually admit that there is any merit at all to any reason for wanting to leave, and since the Labour Party are no better than the Tories when it comes to "mis-using" words and rewriting history to suit themselves, I see no reason not to continue to use both terms as both are more accurate than many of the utterances issuing from either group.
If you find either term insulting, tough luck. I don't like being told I must be a brainless racist thug because I voted Leave. Unlike many Remoaners, I actually looked at the issues and decided we could do better outside than in. And seeing how the EU is behaving now, when they are supposed to be working with us to sort out the best deal for both sides, I would vote leave again. And again, and again. But this isn't the Republic of Ireland so you only got one Referendum, not as many as it took to get the result you wanted. Which, despite what Remoaners seem to think, is how Democracy is supposed to work.
> Fox, who has since stepped down, had an email account (reportedly his personal one) taken over by Russian hackers, who then used it to obtain and release documents about Anglo-American trade talks.
Well, it makes a change from the tradition of 'accidentally' leaving them on the train or a park bench.
It's just been reported that a group of teenagers used a similar attack to compromise several high-profile Twitter accounts. Yet when it's embarrassing for the government, the same style of attack is deemed so sophisticated that it could only have been carried out by a foreign government? I suppose it would be unthinkable to suppose that someone in government could be duped by a 16 year old in Bognor Regis ...
Ooh look, the Russian hackers story again. British readers will recall that the last time this was splashed all over the news, it was very shortly after the Government suffered an embarrassing defeat when their preferred candidate, Chris Grayling, failed to be elected as head of the Intelligence and Security Committee. In response the Conservatives ejected the new head, Julian Lewis, from the Parliamentary party.
British readers will also be aware that the Conservatives are currently receiving criticism for NOT removing (or suspending) another MP from the party who is under investigation for rape. (Important note: the MP has been arrested, is under investigation, but has not currently been charged.)
The Russian hackers story pushed coverage of both the other stories off the BBC News Politics pages.
Why hasn't the former leader of Her Majesty's Opposition explained who gave him the information? I think it's a reasonable question. .... Anonymous Coward
If that is in any way accepted as an official designation/unofficial descriptor for an out-of-office parliamentary political party competitor/parliamentary opponents out of office in political parties ......Her Majesty's Opposition ........ one surely then has a Royal Warrant to bring down the government of the day by whatever means and memes be available and accessible to one ?
Some, who be themselves much more than just a chosen few, may recognise and relish such a manic madness as is evidenced in the crass craziness of parliamentary business, and evolve and resolve to be considerably more effective than was ever before never imagined possible, or never before ever imagined possible if you prefer ........ for there are novel virtual tools and almightily madE weapons nowadays readily available for practical use and misuse and abuse.
* Methinks Too Dangerous to Never Ever Ignore is APT in this quite specific case where/when it remains as an Advanced Persistent Threat.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020