UK Politics Thread IX: Try turning the UK off and on again.

[West Bromwich Holme]

With the rise in COVID rates etc., should we be offering GPs incentives (pay rise?) to do in-person meetings again, not over Zoom etc., especially since so many people can't get a meeting (a cousin of mine said he couldn't, and had one booked, then the GP cancelled) given how much criticism it's had.

Isn't COVID an endemic now, even though the media classifies it as a pandemic?

What's your opinion on this?

[CoraSpia]

With the rise in COVID rates etc., should we be offering GPs incentives (pay rise?) to do in-person meetings again, not over Zoom etc., especially since so many people can't get a meeting (a cousin of mine said he couldn't, and had one booked, then the GP cancelled) given how much criticism it's had.

Isn't COVID an endemic now, even though the media classifies it as a pandemic?

What's your opinion on this?

A pay rise to do things they should already be doing? No, make it a requirement.
I switched gp surgeries over their refusal to do in-person meetings. My dad, who didn't, had a potentially life-threatening spinal infection missed. A bit hard to judge pain and the like over zoom. Safe to say he's now also switched.

[West Bromwich Holme]

With the rise in COVID rates etc., should we be offering GPs incentives (pay rise?) to do in-person meetings again, not over Zoom etc., especially since so many people can't get a meeting (a cousin of mine said he couldn't, and had one booked, then the GP cancelled) given how much criticism it's had.

Isn't COVID an endemic now, even though the media classifies it as a pandemic?

What's your opinion on this?

A pay rise to do things they should already be doing? No, make it a requirement.
I switched gp surgeries over their refusal to do in-person meetings. My dad, who didn't, had a potentially life-threatening spinal infection missed. A bit hard to judge pain and the like over zoom. Safe to say he's now also switched.

Good point - it should be a requirement. What next, NHS psychiatrists refusing to do in-person meetings for people who have PTSD becsause of COVID? Not mocking sufferers here, but if GPs won't do it, where else could this go wrong in?

[CoraSpia]

A pay rise to do things they should already be doing? No, make it a requirement.
I switched gp surgeries over their refusal to do in-person meetings. My dad, who didn't, had a potentially life-threatening spinal infection missed. A bit hard to judge pain and the like over zoom. Safe to say he's now also switched.

Good point - it should be a requirement. What next, NHS psychiatrists refusing to do in-person meetings for people who have PTSD becsause of COVID? Not mocking sufferers here, but if GPs won't do it, where else could this go wrong in?

Everywhere. And it's not due to covid anymore, if it was it'd be uniform across all surgeries. It's about convenience.

[The Huskar Social Union]

DUP will not return to Northern Ireland executive without changes to Brexit protocol, Jeffrey Donaldson vows

This shouldnt surprise anyone, we all know the NI executive is not gona be restored after the election if Sinn Fein become the largest party. The DUP will absolutely not work with a Nationalist FM.

Stormont needs some serious reform, mandatory coalition needs to go, it doesnt work any more.

[Celritannia]

At least if it's nationalised, people don't have to decide if they put money on energy, or use money for food.

That's really the serious problem that you have not factored in.

I know my mum and I will be struggling more because of the increased energy prices.

No you still have to pay, it's a choice people had to make when the network was state owned. More so in fact on balance.

But this is what I mean by many reasons for it and those are the reasons you need to sort out if you want substantially cheaper energy.

I know before you've said your family situation can be tight, but it's more than superficial profit that will change your situation. As it happens I don't think my party can do that but I also don't think other parties will either. Just as one example I don't think the poorer households in society should be paying any sort of green levey or tax really at all. That's £250 or about eight times the profit level. But Labour and Lib Dems love these sorts of taxes, Labour introduced the origional scheme in 2002 and Lid dems didn't seem bothered in coalition. So I don't think that any main parties will really help in that regard.

Nor the Greens, their policies often seem to forget the behavioural change they desire isn't realistic for lots of people and you need a much better way of managing the transition. And no I don't Philjia is one of those sort of greens, I think he would agree with me we need to make sure that extra transition costs don't fall at all on the poorer. I just feel that too many people in positions of influence in his movement focus too much on demanding stuff instantly and not enough on how do we actually manage a realistic period of change that doesn't adversely affect the less well off.

I do think some of the current hardship has happened because of a lack of shorter term planning around making sure we have the mix of generation and energy supplies to cope with this sort of shock in a head long rush for being green. You don't have to slow down the pace to secure domestic gas supplies or not serious cut down spare generation capacity from other sources. You just have to preserve those things in tandem to help protect poorer people from the consequences of supply shocks and morally speaking I fall on that side.

Things that will instantly knock 10 or 20% off your bill not something that may or may not knock 1% in the medium term.

But it's not just about energy prices.

This corrupt government has allowed households to get poorer while giving benefits to their rich friends. Living standards and basic prices have increased while wages and the benefits system have remained stagnant.

A UBI is necessary, wage increases are necessary, and taxing the rich more is necessary. Otherwise, things will get worse for those who are already struggling.

The Tories always fail the people.

[West Bromwich Holme]

This article sensationally claims Brexit is going to waste.

If we've got a shortage of workers, rather than importing them from the EU and having a visa, should we let Americans and Canadians come in, since they've for years said on social media they wanted to work in the UK if they could, one person saying he'd do whatever it took. As it were, would that cause major problems with the US and Canada and damage our relationships, even if a reciprocal immigration agreement was reached?

Or would that cause more problems than it solves?

[Shrillland]

This article sensationally claims Brexit is going to waste.

If we've got a shortage of workers, rather than importing them from the EU and having a visa, should we let Americans and Canadians come in, since they've for years said on social media they wanted to work in the UK if they could, one person saying he'd do whatever it took. As it were, would that cause major problems with the US and Canada and damage our relationships, even if a reciprocal immigration agreement was reached?

Or would that cause more problems than it solves?

It's an inevitability of secession. Britain's only geopolitical options were to be an equal if occasionally surly partner in the EU or a groveling yet deluded vassal of the US. The voting public ruled out the former, so all Britain has left is to cast themselves westward.

[Risottia]

...all Britain has left is to cast themselves westward.

Westward of Britain... there's the EU.

Maybe Britain would be happier in the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain.

[Old Tyrannia]

This article sensationally claims Brexit is going to waste.

If we've got a shortage of workers, rather than importing them from the EU and having a visa, should we let Americans and Canadians come in, since they've for years said on social media they wanted to work in the UK if they could, one person saying he'd do whatever it took. As it were, would that cause major problems with the US and Canada and damage our relationships, even if a reciprocal immigration agreement was reached?

Or would that cause more problems than it solves?

How many Americans and Canadians do you think would be ready to cross the Atlantic to work as agricultural labourers? Do you think that there is a shortage of that sort of intensive unskilled work in North America? Somehow I find that unlikely.

[Antipatros]

This article sensationally claims Brexit is going to waste.

If we've got a shortage of workers, rather than importing them from the EU and having a visa, should we let Americans and Canadians come in, since they've for years said on social media they wanted to work in the UK if they could, one person saying he'd do whatever it took. As it were, would that cause major problems with the US and Canada and damage our relationships, even if a reciprocal immigration agreement was reached?

Or would that cause more problems than it solves?

How many Americans and Canadians do you think would be ready to cross the Atlantic to work as agricultural labourers? Do you think that there is a shortage of that sort of intensive unskilled work in North America? Somehow I find that unlikely.

From an American perspective, this idea is pretty bizarre.

We do not have a glut of agricultural laborers -- we bring in a lot of seasonal workers from Latin America for this purpose.

[Celritannia]

This article sensationally claims Brexit is going to waste.

If we've got a shortage of workers, rather than importing them from the EU and having a visa, should we let Americans and Canadians come in, since they've for years said on social media they wanted to work in the UK if they could, one person saying he'd do whatever it took. As it were, would that cause major problems with the US and Canada and damage our relationships, even if a reciprocal immigration agreement was reached?

Or would that cause more problems than it solves?

How many Americans and Canadians do you think would be ready to cross the Atlantic to work as agricultural labourers? Do you think that there is a shortage of that sort of intensive unskilled work in North America? Somehow I find that unlikely.

If only the UK didn't leave the EU. Ah well, not like this mentioned.

[The Archregimancy]

From politicalbetting.com

JUST 14% BACK THE PRIVATISATION OF CHANNEL 4

Not good figures for such a controversial move
Given how controversial Johnson’s plan for Channel 4 is then this latest polling is hardly going to help his move. This is especially the case because of the reported level of opposition from Tory MPs and the need to get the bill through the House of Lords.

It is not helped that the minister responsible, Nadine Dorries, was not certain about C4s ownership when she appeared before a Commons committee.

This is seen as being very much a personal measure by the PM and I just wonder whether it could end the way of his plans for Owen Paterson late last year.

A problem is that there was no provision for C4 privatisation in the Tory GE2019 manifesto which means that the upper House will be much less constrained.

If there was a betting market I would wager that this will not get enacted.

The link also includes an image of the YouGov underlining the above: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index ... channel-4/

However, I would think that the real problem for the government is that Sir David Attenborough has apparently come out against privatisation of Channel 4. Go against Sir David at your peril.

[West Bromwich Holme]

From politicalbetting.com

JUST 14% BACK THE PRIVATISATION OF CHANNEL 4

Not good figures for such a controversial move
Given how controversial Johnson’s plan for Channel 4 is then this latest polling is hardly going to help his move. This is especially the case because of the reported level of opposition from Tory MPs and the need to get the bill through the House of Lords.

It is not helped that the minister responsible, Nadine Dorries, was not certain about C4s ownership when she appeared before a Commons committee.

This is seen as being very much a personal measure by the PM and I just wonder whether it could end the way of his plans for Owen Paterson late last year.

A problem is that there was no provision for C4 privatisation in the Tory GE2019 manifesto which means that the upper House will be much less constrained.

If there was a betting market I would wager that this will not get enacted.

The link also includes an image of the YouGov underlining the above: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index ... channel-4/

However, I would think that the real problem for the government is that Sir David Attenborough has apparently come out against privatisation of Channel 4. Go against Sir David at your peril.

I don't support the privatization of Channel 4 at all. They outsource all their programming and don't do it in-house, and have tried to over the years, push the boat out and be edgy.

Married At First Sight may be a tawdry reality show, but it's also envelope-pushing in a way, too.

Then again, so were some other Channel 4 programmes.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Peers inflict defeat on Government over controversial voter ID proposals

The House of Lords voted 199 to 170 to expand the list of accepted identification to include non-photo documents.

Controversial election reforms have been amended after peers inflicted a defeat on the Government over plans to introduce voter ID.

People would be required to show an approved form of photographic identification before collecting their ballot paper to vote in a polling station under measures contained in the Elections Bill.

But peers voted 199 to 170, majority 29, to support an amendment from Conservative former minister Lord Willetts to expand the list of accepted identification to include non-photo documents such as birth certificates, bank statements, council tax demands and library cards.

Lord Willetts argued this would enable the Government to meet its 2019 manifesto commitment to introduce “identification to vote” at polling stations in a bid combat fraud but also prevent large numbers of people being turned away from voting.

Peers also argued the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto did not specify “photo ID” but merely identification.

Under the terms of the Bill, the requirement for photo ID to vote would apply across the UK in general elections and a free voter card would be available from councils for people without a suitable form of ID.

But critics do not believe the scale of the problem justifies the move and warn it will hit turnout.

=CONTINUES=

Oh and: George Galloway: Twitter bio branded 'Russian state-affiliated media

lmao

[Ifreann]

Oh and: George Galloway: Twitter bio branded 'Russian state-affiliated media']George Galloway: Twitter bio branded 'Russian state-affiliated media

lmao

No doubt this is all part of an imperialist plot against him. Or because he works for RT.

[West Bromwich Holme]

Boris Johnson refuses to rule out another lockdown.

I doubt public compliance will be as high as the 2020-2021 lockdowns, and add the fact there's the Partygate scandal with him not following his own rules and well... not looking good.

I wouldn't want a fourth or fifth lockdown.

[The Blaatschapen]

Boris Johnson refuses to rule out another lockdown.

I doubt public compliance will be as high as the 2020-2021 lockdowns, and add the fact there's the Partygate scandal with him not following his own rules and well... not looking good.

I wouldn't want a fourth or fifth lockdown.

Nobody wants it, but just like in EU countries, leaders will balance it all come autumn, and put back some of the restrictions.

[Shrillland]

We didn't mention this yesterday but....There's a real bad sign for the Tories ahead of next month's Council votes.

The Lib Dems managed to snatch a safe blue East Riding Council seat thanks to both general Conservative fatigue and anger at a new Amazon warehouse being built in the area.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Uppa lib dems

Maybe.

[The Huskar Social Union]

There are now a grand total of 17 candidates for West Belfast in the upcoming assembly election, up from the 12 of 2017. We have in total:

Nationalist/Republican:
x4 Sinn Fein
x1 SDLP
x1 Aontu
x1 IRSP

Other/Unsure:
x1 People Before Profit
x1 Workers Party
x1 Green
x1 Alliance
x3 Independents

Unionist:
x1 DUP
x1 UUP
x1 TUV

So straight off the bat none of the Unionists are gona get elected. There hasnt been any Unionist representation in terms of MLA's for West Belfast since like 2003 with Dianne Dodds and its a three way battle. Realistically its either gona be a repeat of 2017 with four Sinn Fein MLA's and the one People Before Profit MLA being returned or possibly (and this is unlikely imo, especially after recent polling) three Sinn Fein, one People Before Profit and one SDLP MLA.

I would be happy to see the SDLP nab a seat here as they only lost their one seat in 2017 due to a mix of a resurgent Sinn Fein vote and the reduction of MLA's from six to five in each constituency, so it is a possibility and imo they are the only party/candidate that actually stands a shot of winning a seat here this election bar SF and PBP. But im also expecting the make up to remain the same.

Alliance i just hope increases their vote share, this is the worst performing constituency for them in NI, they were fourth last here in 2017 with 747 votes (up about 300 from the 2016 election), so if they can make over 1000 this time that would be a nice bit of improvement.

[The Archregimancy]

We didn't mention this yesterday but....There's a real bad sign for the Tories ahead of next month's Council votes.

The Lib Dems managed to snatch a safe blue East Riding Council seat thanks to both general Conservative fatigue and anger at a new Amazon warehouse being built in the area.

LibDem poll ratings remain shaky at the national level, but at the local level they're often doing startlingly well in very specific areas.

These specific areas tend to be the old standbys of middle class academic and genteel spa towns on the one hand and traditionalist 'old Tory' seats where more traditionalist Tory voters are disgusted with the government but would never vote Labour on the other. The East Riding of Yorkshire - assuming we're excluding the separate unitary authority of Hull - happens to be a bit of both; gentle rolling old Tory countryside combined with a fair number of academic connections with the universities of Hull (much of the university community actually lives in Beverley) and York (a largeish cluster of whom live in Stamford Bridge and Pocklington).

So while it would be wrong to write of a proper LibDem revival, where conditions are right - the local election result noted here, the North Shropshire by-election - the party can still pull off some remarkable results.

The best evidence that this is causing some palpitations at Tory HQ was the report in the Telegraph back in the second half of March that the PM was refusing to put Maldon MP John Whittingdale forward as a candidate for head of Ofcom because he didn't want to risk a by-election in the seat.

Non paywalled link and quote:

It is being reported in the Telegraph that the Prime Minister has blocked the Maldon MP from being appointed head of OfCom because of the risk of losing the seat in a by-election. The figures from the last general election are in the Wikipedia table above.

On the face of it this looks crazy given the sheer size of Whittingdale’s majority at GE2019. The seat went leave at the referendum with a 62% vote share and the proportion of graduates, at 22% is below the UK average.

It would take a CON to LD swing of 30.1% for the Tories to lose such an election which might sound impregnable but it is less than 34% that we saw in North Shropshire in December.

Whittingdale, the current MP, is a former cabinet minister.

[The Nihilistic view]

We didn't mention this yesterday but....There's a real bad sign for the Tories ahead of next month's Council votes.

The Lib Dems managed to snatch a safe blue East Riding Council seat thanks to both general Conservative fatigue and anger at a new Amazon warehouse being built in the area.

LibDem poll ratings remain shaky at the national level, but at the local level they're often doing startlingly well in very specific areas.

These specific areas tend to be the old standbys of middle class academic and genteel spa towns on the one hand and traditionalist 'old Tory' seats where more traditionalist Tory voters are disgusted with the government but would never vote Labour on the other. The East Riding of Yorkshire - assuming we're excluding the separate unitary authority of Hull - happens to be a bit of both; gentle rolling old Tory countryside combined with a fair number of academic connections with the universities of Hull (much of the university community actually lives in Beverley) and York (a largeish cluster of whom live in Stamford Bridge and Pocklington).

So while it would be wrong to write of a proper LibDem revival, where conditions are right - the local election result noted here, the North Shropshire by-election - the party can still pull off some remarkable results.

The best evidence that this is causing some palpitations at Tory HQ was the report in the Telegraph back in the second half of March that the PM was refusing to put Maldon MP John Whittingdale forward as a candidate for head of Ofcom because he didn't want to risk a by-election in the seat.

Non paywalled link and quote:

It is being reported in the Telegraph that the Prime Minister has blocked the Maldon MP from being appointed head of OfCom because of the risk of losing the seat in a by-election. The figures from the last general election are in the Wikipedia table above.

On the face of it this looks crazy given the sheer size of Whittingdale’s majority at GE2019. The seat went leave at the referendum with a 62% vote share and the proportion of graduates, at 22% is below the UK average.

It would take a CON to LD swing of 30.1% for the Tories to lose such an election which might sound impregnable but it is less than 34% that we saw in North Shropshire in December.

Whittingdale, the current MP, is a former cabinet minister.

Not that I've ever voted for you but I have often found local lib dems around me seem to be more of what I'd expect out of a Liberal party and often much more closely aligned with the local Conservative platforms. Which in themselves tend to not be as right leaning as at a national level. I imagine that's party a function of trying to win votes in the south east/west and the pool of candidates being from such areas.

More so with the lib dems but a little bit with conservatives I've often found the local party has positions that can directly contradict the national party.

[San Lumen]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-61035623

Labour loses control of High Peak Borough Council after by-election

[The Huskar Social Union]

The UDR: A potent weapon in Britain’s ‘dirty war’ in Northern Ireland

For some, the conflict in Northern Ireland was characterised by an impenetrable jumble of abbreviations. Amid the alphabet soup of loyalist paramilitary groups – the UVF, LVF, UDA, etc – some might mistakenly include the UDR. But the Ulster Defence Regiment was in fact a fully-fledged element of the British army.

Lauded by prime ministers and garlanded by royals, the UDR was at one time the largest infantry regiment in the British army. It also spent longer on continuous active duty than any other unit in the army’s long and violent history.

From its formation on April 1st, 1970, the UDR was a very different type of army regiment. Formed from the ashes of a discredited sectarian force, the notorious B Specials, the UDR was perhaps doomed from the start.

The French political scientist Anne Mandeville writes that it represented “a sort of curious paradox: a militia force [the B Specials] is dissolved in general opprobrium. What do we choose to succeed it? Another militia force.”

She describes the UDR as “a kind of monster”, simultaneously “presented as an arm of the State but deeply in solidarity with the Protestant community, ‘integrated’ into the British army but separated from it organically, geographically and by its specificity”.

This “specificity” was that it was reserved for use solely in Northern Ireland and, tellingly, away from nationalist or Catholic areas such as west Belfast, Derry city and south Armagh.

It was a classic militia regiment, part of a long tradition of the use of such forces by the British empire. Regular army elements stationed in Northern Ireland referred to the UDR as “native levies” – terminology usually reserved for local troops raised in, and for suppression of, “the colonies”.

For unionists, service in the UDR was a noble act and often a family tradition. Many ordinary and decent people wore a UDR uniform. Thousands of people living in Northern Ireland will have relatives who did so.

For nationalists, an encounter with the UDR at one of its roadside checkpoints was frequently hostile, often brutal and sometimes fatal. Many recall approaching the red torchlight swung by a soldier in the road and hoping it was the regular army ordering them to halt.

In one notorious incident, the Miami Showband stopped their tour van at what they thought was a British army checkpoint. Instead, it was a trap set by members of the Glenanne gang, serving (but off-duty) UDR soldiers who were simultaneously members of the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF). Three of the band members were murdered that evening and two were seriously wounded. The killers were UDR by day, UVF by night.

Declassified British government and Ministry of Defence files disclose the stunning extent of collusion between the UDR and loyalist paramilitaries, the penetration of that regiment by loyalist paramilitaries, and the extent to which all of this was known about, tolerated and encouraged by the British government and military command.

Official references to collusion between state forces and loyalist paramilitaries can be found in reports dating from as early as 1971. Reference to the theft of a rifle from the UDR on September 2nd, 1971, appears in a note about weapons losses forwarded, in 1972, to the office of a British under-secretary of state – that is, to ministerial level. Internal British army documents throughout the 1970s used the word collusion routinely and repeatedly.

The extent of weapons losses from UDR armouries, or from the homes of UDR personnel, amounted to a steady flow of modern military equipment from the British army straight into the hands of loyalist gangs.

A 1973 military intelligence document, titled Subversion in the UDR, found that 5 to 15 per cent of the UDR members had paramilitary links, with “widespread joint membership of the UDA” – referring to the paramilitary Ulster Defence Association. In fact, in many areas UDR commanders considered dual membership normal.

The same report stated that some soldiers were “undoubtedly living double lives” and that the primary loyalty of many of its members was to a concept of “Ulster” rather than to the British government.

It is striking, when one examines these official documents from the 1970s, to see echoes today in the infiltration by violent far-right groups of the police and military in Britain, the US and elsewhere.

Most significantly, the Subversion in the UDR report found that the UDR was the single “best” source of weapons for loyalist gangs, and their ‘”only significant source of modern weapons”.

Files from 1974 reveal that the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) was consulting representatives of all loyalist paramilitary groups on the future direction of the UDR, leading to the bizarre situation where loyalist extremists were influencing British military policy.

Lest we think such collusion was confined to the past, we should recall that at the beginning of 2021 the NIO was meeting loyalist extremist groups to discuss British foreign policy (Brexit).

In 1978, investigations into the UDR’s Tenth Battalion (10 UDR), the Belfast city battalion, concluded that two specific companies of 10 UDR were “the supply and financial support elements for local paramilitary organisations”.

The investigations revealed that at least 15 members of 10 UDR based at Girdwood Barracks in north Belfast, who had been in the battalion over a period of years, were also members of the loyalist paramilitary UVF.

At this time, the Belfast UVF included a particular gang of sadistic sectarian killers, the Shankill Butchers, who went down in infamy, even in the context of the terrible 30-year conflict. It is significant that most of the attacks committed by the Shankill Butchers took place within one square mile of Girdwood Barracks, the base of 10 UDR. One of the Shankill Butchers, Edward McIlwaine, was a serving UDR soldier.

That the UDR served a vital function for the British state is evidenced by its tolerance of rampant criminality within its ranks. Between 1985 and 1989, UDR members were twice as likely to commit a crime as the general public. The UDR crime rate was 10 times that for police officers in the RUC and about four times the British army rate.

By the early 1990s, around 120 members or former members of the regiment were serving prison sentences for serious crimes, and 17 had been convicted of murder.

There is mounting evidence that the NIO, the RUC and the prosecution service colluded in a consistent policy of withholding the UDR identity of soldiers who were being prosecuted for serious crimes. In several such incidences, documents from the NIO’s Law & Order Division state that “the Police will not be referring to his membership of the security forces”.

This was not just a kind of ad hoc, case-by-case decision, taken at a junior level, which one might expect to result from the odd “bad apple” in the ranks.

Imagine, in a modern context, if a US state trooper was in court for invading the US Congress, and his official identity was deliberately hidden from court by elements of the state. This was the case for numerous cases of former UDR members who were before the courts.

We are approaching the 30th anniversary of the regiment’s dissolution. And yet truths continue to emerge that unlock closely guarded state secrets about the British “dirty war” in Ireland, not least the role of the UDR.

Researching my new book, UDR Declassified, over the past two years, I was able to see and read what 10 Downing Street, the NIO and the British Ministry of Defence knew (and said) about the controversial regiment in more than 200 declassified documents recovered from the British National Archives.

Exposing such truths, using the very words of those in authority, is not “rewriting” history, it is correcting it.

UDR Declassified, by Micheál Smith, is published by Merrion Press.

I mean this isn't gona be news to anyone from Ireland, but its good more of it is finally getting put out there for others to learn about.