Forum menu
See dangeourbrains response – just because it hasn’t happened here yet doesn’t mean it won’t.
I did see dangeourbrains response, he claimed that it has happened in the past, and is happening again today elsewhere. It has never happened in the UK. Every single Home Secretary in UK for literally hundreds of years has come from the Tory, Labour, or Liberal Party.
Of course anything is possible, no one's arguing that it isn't. Nigel Farage could be installed as Prime Minister by a military coup, stranger things have happened in the world.
If we are going to have a purge we need to......
Who the hell is talking of "purges"??? Get a grip. We are talking about politicians being held accountable in law for deliberately lying to the public in relation to official government statistics, if they have indeed done that.
As I have already pointed out it is currently illegal for a politician to tell lies and if they do they may be held accountable by the courts. Here is an example of a politician being successfully taken to court for lying :
Was that the courts "moderating" or interfering in politics? I don't recall an outcry over that particular case. Sure I recognise that it was under completely different legislation, well common law actually, but the moral principle (ie whether a politician can lie with impunity to achieve their political goals) remains the same.
And note this from the article : "In her defence, Collins argued that it was a political speech, which did not contain any allegation of fact, but merely expressed an opinion"
So her defence thought the issue was whether it was an "allegation of fact". What's a "fact"? Was the £350m a week a "fact" or an opinion? In the case of the UKIP MEP the court presumably decided that it was indeed an allegation of fact.
Let's be clear, I accept very much that we are treading on potentially dangerous ground when we talk about taking politicians to court for lying, but that doesn't mean that we should dodge the issue altogether. And let's also be clear that we're talking about deliberate repeated lies, which are deliberately designed to misinform and mislead the public and are presented as official government statistics/facts. And have real consequences, not trivial stuff which forms part of the normal rough and tumble of politics.
The district judge did address this point in her decision.
Great, linky?
he claimed that it has happened in the past, and is happening again today elsewhere
I don't think that was my response, or least if it was you read it rather differently than I wrote it.
that doesn’t mean that we should dodge the issue altogether.
We don't dodge the issue. As you yourself say, libel laws still apply to politicians, if they hold public office they already can't lie under many circumstances. So where possible Politicians are already prevented from lying, but allowing non elected people a wholesale veto over the words of elected people (or people seeking election) makes totalitarianism likely/inevitable and that's why no real democracy does it.
As I have already pointed out it is currently illegal for a politician to tell lies and if they do they may be held accountable by the courts. Here is an example of a politician being successfully taken to court for lying :
Libel is a very specific form of lying, lying per se is not currently illegal. Libel applies to everyone and doesn't have the potential to impact freedom of.soeech in the same way.
Your reference to hundreds of years of Labour,l and Tory government etc, is just more British exceptionalism. We've only had full enfranchisement for what, 70-100 years? Hardly enough time to see whether the British population and political system is immune to the cyclical waves of populism evident throughout history.
I think you should read the whole post raybanwomble instead of small selected bits, it will give a much clearer picture of the points which you have apparently missed.
It’s either the truth or a lie, as it was phrased as a statement of fact, not a suggestion. There’s no misleading.
I think the problem is that it’s both true and misleading.
You might argue well the payments are monthly, or annually not weeks but as footballers have been paid monthly for decades could you really call it a lie?
So, it seems our annual payments to the EU are indeed about 18bn a year, but they pay us back 5bn a year so we only pay 13bn. This happens all the time in business I might owe another business £5k for some building work in the office but they owe me £3k for some hardware. A lot of the time I’ll ask for a ‘contra’ invoice to be raised and pay them £2k.
I hope he’s found guilty because the bus was a horrible lie, but for me it was the “let’s give it to the NHS” part that was a lie, there was never £350bn to give to anyone, there wasn’t even £250bn in fact as we (remainers) all know in reality we’ll likely have to suffer more cuts as our GDP and tax revenue falls. If they get him on the first sentence for the crime of the second I’d call it justice served.
The bigger issue though is the court of public opinion (unless he actually gets sent down of course) it doesn’t really matter - voters might hate lying MPs, but leavers won’t think he’s lied, that’s the payment, and we’re all going to have more money after we leave so it’s just a political witch-hunt from remainers trying to steal Brexit.
While it's easy to take pleasure in anything that puts BoJo into some legal discomfort, even going this far creates an unsettling precedent which means the authorities will be deluged with criminal allegations that politicians of all persuasions are knowingly misleading the public. This private prosecution opens the door to all kinds of badly-motivated and vexatious allegations against MPs, councillors etc.
This allegation has been shoehorned into legislation which was designed to counter far more extreme cases of corruption and malfeasance (hence the maximum sentence of life). It will fail, not just because the statement in question is worded in such a way that it is a lie contained within a partial truth, but because IMO the Brexit campaign related only tenuously to Boris' actual public office at the time.
The idea of using this law to criminalise falsehoods from MPs and ministers may seem superficially attractive, but would be used as a stick to beat every government, and potentially those on the opposite benches, from now on.
Outofbreath:
Here you go - https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/marcus-ball-v-alexander-boris-de-pfeffel-johnson/
but for me it was the “let’s give it to the NHS” part that was a lie,
That's not what it said.
The suggestion is clear but at no point does that say "give it/use it/spend it", it certainly doesn't say let's give ALL OF 350mil/week to the NHS instead. It simply suggests we should fund the NHS instead. A £0.01 switch from the EU bill to NHS funding would make what has been said perfectly true.
A £0.01 switch from the EU bill to NHS funding would make what has been said
perfectly truetechnically true, although utterly misleading.
FTFY
FTFY
No you really didn't. The statement would be true, that you, and the population at large read something it doesn't say makes you wrong, not the writing on the bus.
It's written to deliberately imply one thing whilst actually saying another, granted, but as with so many things, what's not said [gross for instance?] is more important than what is.
Isn't the bus a bit of a red herring though?
Having read the judges decision linked above the case seems to hinge on the fact that Boris repeatedly quoted the £350 million figure in print, on TV and radio and indeed stood in front of a bus.
The crucial bit seems to be that there seems to be evidence that he demonstrably knew that the figures were wrong when he kept saying it, making it a deliberate porky.
It's not about the writing on the bus, it's about the words that came pouring out Boris.
I work for a telesales company, and if one of our staff said that on a call it would be classed as a critical fail and would require us to contact the customer to correct the misleading statement.
No you really didn’t. The statement would be true, that you, and the population at large read something it doesn’t say makes you wrong, not the writing on the bus.
It’s written to deliberately imply one thing whilst actually saying another, granted, but as with so many things, what’s not said [gross for instance?] is more important than what is.
So technically true, but utterly misleading?
Isn’t the bus a bit of a red herring though?
Having read the judges decision linked above the case seems to hinge on the fact that Boris repeatedly quoted the £350 million figure in print, on TV and radio and indeed stood in front of a bus.
The crucial bit seems to be that there seems to be evidence that he demonstrably knew that the figures were wrong when he kept saying it, making it a deliberate porky.
It’s not about the writing on the bus, it’s about the words that came pouring out Boris.
This ^
I hope this case makes Bojo and the rest of our self serving politicians think a bit more about what (and how) they speak. Populist politics have no place in our country and we should do everything in our power to stay it out.
Dangeourbrain - on the bus maybe but not on all the accompanying pr:
https://images.app.goo.gl/7kFgnCSLVuYWiW4y8
The suggestion is clear but at no point does that say “give it/use it/spend it”
And yet,
I suppose you're going to argue now that it's only a suggestion and they didn't say they were actually going to do it.
We all know he's a lying sack of shit and we all know the semantics of the (various) statements have been carefully worded to avoid this type of court case.
I suspect that the fact that this is actually going to court means he slipped up on the wording his PR team fed him.
It’s not about the writing on the bus, it’s about the words that came pouring out Boris.
I've just skimmed the preliminary court hearing where they decided whether there was a case to answer or not. It says,
"During both time periods outlined above [MP and Mayor], the (proposed) defendant repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week. Whilst doing so he was acting as a public officer and using the platforms and opportunities offered to him by virtue of his public office. Further the defendant knew that such comments were false or misleading in that he had on other occasions used accurate figures and showed a clear understanding of how to quantify UK spending in respect of the EU. Lying on a national and international platform undermines public confidence in politics, undermines the integrity of public referendums and brings both public offices held by the (proposed) defendant into disrepute.
...
The kernel of the offence is that an officer, having been entrusted with powers and duties for public benefit, has in some way abused them, or has abused his official position."
There's no mention anywhere about the bus specifically, this is a red herring. Rather, the accusation is that he lied repeatedly and intentionally in order to mislead, whilst in an influential role.
Oh, linky to that court report if anyone else wants to read it.
Jinx
I'm sure bojo will get off. Once it goes far enough up the court system influence will be brought to bear and he will get away with it. The establishment will protect him
The establishment will protect him
I'm sure Gove et al will give him their full support.
I’m sure bojo will get off. Once it goes far enough up the court system influence will be brought to bear and he will get away with it. The establishment will protect him
I think you need an extra layer of tinfoil on your hat. It’s possible the DPP could intervene to take on the case and then discontinue but I think the DPP would probably rather not get involved. If you are thinking that the Judiciary will be influenced by MPs I think you underestimate how much they pride themselves on their independence and would see any attempt to influence it as an affront. That is not to say that at some stage between now and the end of any trial that the legal argument falls down in Bojos favour, or the evidence doesn’t stack up.
If the establishment were going to do anything I’d have thought it was make sure that such a liability doesn’t become PM - and protecting this case from outside interference (even if they expect a jury to find not guilty) would help achieve that.
This is an interesting read.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/05/the-private-prosecution-of-boris-johnson-what-happens-next/
The establishment will protect him
I don't know about that, Jeffrey Archer did a bit of bird.
P-Jay
for me it was the “let’s give it to the NHS” part that was a lie, there was never £350bn to give to anyone, there wasn’t even £250bn in fact as we (remainers) all know in reality we’ll likely have to suffer more cuts as our GDP and tax revenue falls
Two points. Firstly we are not all Remainers. And secondly, there is an alternative opinion which claims that remaining in the EU will have a long term detrimental effect on the NHS.
koldun Member
We all know he’s a lying sack of shit .....
Indeed. I'm not sure however how widespread that awareness is among the general public. I myself, despite being aware of his long history of lying, was surprised to learn recently just how far back it goes. Apparently he was sacked for lying when he was a young trainee journalist working for The Times newspaper. Lying appears to be deeply ingrained into his personality.
If nothing else this court case will focus attention to this aspect of his personality.
Two points. Firstly we are not all Remainers. And secondly, there is an alternative opinion which claims that remaining in the EU will have a long term detrimental effect on the NHS.
I’d be interested to hear it.
ajaj: The district judge did address this point in her decision.
OOB: Great, Linky?
Poly: Outofbreath:
Here you go – https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/marcus-ball-v-alexander-boris-de-pfeffel-johnson//blockquote >Thanks Poly, that's great.
Addresses the point but seems to have near little faith that it's valid:
Mr Power has referred me to the Law Commission’s paper on Misconduct in a Public
Office, dated 20 January 2016. The commissioners observe in respect to “acting as
such” that it appears to be sufficient that there is an improper use of the opportunity afforded
by a public office. All that this element serves to exclude is an act performed by the officer in a
private capacity to which his or her position is simply irrelevant (paragraph 2.119) Relying
on a Law Commission paper may not be the applicant’s strongest point.
I’d be interested to hear it.
Really? Sure? OK, but I've got a bit on right now, I'll try to get back later, or tomorrow.
And yet
I'll rely on semantic whinging here.
"Yes miss. But he said BUS miss"
I don't disagree, he deserves everything he gets and, were it about something else I'd be at the front of the queue for seats in court but I do think that, of all the things BJ has ever lied about this is about the worst one to choose to drag him over the coals about.
But yes, that particular poster is clearly untrue, because regardless of the veracity of the 350 figure as a "a" figure it demonstrably can't and never could all be given to anything else. I'm actually quite pleased to see it because it does mean the case will be about something other than gross or net.
Really? Sure? OK, but I’ve got a bit on right now, I’ll try to get back later, or tomorrow.
*Starts digging Anderson shelter*
Okay P-Jay ..... let me tell you "The Strange Story of Doctor David Qwen". And are you sitting comfortably in your shelter raybanwomble?
Dr David Owen was of course the leading protagonist in the infamous "Gang Of Four", the group of MPs who in 1981 broke away from the Labour Party to form their own political party. This course of action split the Labour vote and in no small way help to keep Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister for 10 years.
Dr David Owen's motivation was based on 3 major Labour Party policies which he claimed he could never under any circumstances support, ie, nationalisation of the banks, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and withdrawal from the European Community.
Dr David Owen was a particularly strong supporter of the European Community. Indeed he felt so strongly about it that resigned from Harold Wilson’s shadow cabinet in 1972 over Labour’s refusal to back British entry to the EEC. His new party, the Social Democratic Party, formed an electoral alliance with the equally pro-European Liberal Party.
Eventually in 1988 the two parties formed the Liberal Democratic Party, at which point Dr David Owen appears to disappear into political oblivion.
Now I don't know when, nor whether it was a gradual process or a Road to Damascus moment, but at some point between then and 1996 Dr David Owen transformed himself in a Eurosceptic. I know that it wasn't after 1996 because he claims that Tony Blair attempted to seduce back into the Labour Party then with promises of a bright political future. A believable claim imo as Owen had been quite a political heavyweight previously in the Labour Party. He had been, among other things, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and Minister of State for Health and Social Security.
However he turned down the offer when he apparently realised that Blair was committed to taking Britain into the European currency (I think Gordon Brown won on that one) Owen claims that it was the "best decision I ever made in my life”.
Owen then pops up again in the political limelight just before the EU Referendum during the campaign. He is now a totally committed Brexiteer. Although the former physician hasn't practised medicine for a long time healthcare and the NHS is still his passion, and he argues forcefully that it is vital to leave the EU to save the NHS. He led the Vote Leave 'Save Our NHS' campaign.
Ironical if he hadn't done what did in a previous life Labour might have won the 1983 general election and the UK would have left the European Community.
Anyway that was the background, here is the alternative opinion that you requested. It's by the now Lord David Owen. It's a speech he made last year. It's quite long, about 13 pages. It starts off quite interesting but then becomes a bit boring and tedious as it focuses details and technical issues.
Btw I'm no fan of David Owen among my many criticisms of him is that he was a crap Foreign Secretary. During his tenure as Foreign Secretary he claimed that the only opposition to Shah of Iran consisted of communists. Let's hope his grasp of healthcare issues is better than his grasp of foreign affairs was. I suspect that it probably is.
I see the far right on the forum are still resorting to straw man tactics, rather than making a direct point.
I see the far right on the forum are still resorting to straw man tactics
They could, of course, fund a private prosecution against Blair in the same way. Set up a donation fund and see how much money they get in the same way that this private prosecution against Johnson was funded.
Put their money where their mouths are.
Why would they do that? My understanding is that Tony Blair was the darling of the Right. They went in their droves to the polling stations to vote for him...... a couple of alt-right punters on here have openly admitted to voting for him.
Even right-wing Tories such as Margaret Thatcher have publicly declared their admiration for Tony Blair. She famously said that New Labour was her "greatest achievement".
Besides there have already been attempts for private criminal prosecutions against Tony Blair, they failed. The courts decided that he was immune from prosecution. Which of course isn't likely to act as a deterrent to any future Prime Minister who considers launching a bloody foreign war based on a bunch of lies, and which results in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Plus the Attorney General successfully blocked the prosecution because apparently it could “involve details being disclosed under the Official Secrets Act”. Tony Blair has got his arse well covered.
Mind you I hope attempts to prosecute him are never completely abandoned. I want the thought of the risk of prosecution to be somewhere in the back of his mind every day for the rest of his life. Not because I think he might fear the punishment, but because of the devastating blow to his ego the thought of going down in history as a convicted criminal would cause.
So Ernie, you said that it was nothing to worry about because it's never happened here.
I see the far right on the forum are still resorting to straw man tactics, rather than making a direct point.
NewsThump is far right ?
So Ernie, you said that it was nothing to worry about because it’s never happened here.
That is perfect correct. I also said that of course anything can happen. If you want to consider all possibilities then you must consider the possibility that TJ will become PM, Drac will become Minster of Information, and Chewkw will become Foreign Secretary. How can you be sure that it won't happen?
You gave the example of the Interior Minister of Austria as an example of what could happened in the UK. I stated that it was not feasible to assume that a similar thing could happen here. Without tediously repeating everything I previously said, I pointed out that the Austrian Interior Minister was a member of a party whose first leader had been a former Nazi Ministry and a SS officer.
The Freedom Party in Austria is a neo-Nazi organisation which among other things is fanatically Islamophobic and anti-Jewish.
I also pointed out that, unlike Austria, Fascists and Nazis have never got a foothold in UK politics, they have been trying for the last 80 years or so. They have never managed to get one single MP. I further pointed out that, unlike most of Europe, the far-right has been in retreat in the UK for the last 10 years. The BNP, which is undoubtedly fascist and neo-Nazi like the Austria Freedom Party, can't manage to get one single councillor anywhere in the UK.
And I pointed out that every single Home Secretary for the last few hundred years has been a member of the Liberal Party, Tory Party, or Labour Party. The possibility of the next Home Secretary not being a member of one of those parties is extremely remote, to say the least. The possibility that they will be a member of a neo-Nazi party, such as the BNP, is even more remote, if that is possible.
Now if you want to pretend that the Brexit Party is a neo-Nazi party, while completely ignoring the fact that it was formed as a direct result of UKIP swinging to the far right and embracing the Islamophobia of fascist parties in Europe, such as the Northern League, the Freedom Party, and Golden Dawn, and on the basis of one opinion poll you're now getting all hysterical because you think they are going to form the next government, then that's up you.
But please don't use it to justify allowing Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson to get away with deliberately and repeatedly lying, allegedly, to the British people. Try to think of a better reason.
BTW just to add. I am acutely aware that 2 things above all else help fascists achieve power. The first is an economic crises, and the second is people not taking the threat that they pose seriously.
So I will never be dismissive of a genuine fascist threat.
*drops mic*
So just to bring things back to reality..
We can crash out, Go with the WA or cancel it all and have a rethink.
There are only 3 options.
To bring things back to reality and very vaguely back to the topic of the thread, ie, what is the truth about the effect on the NHS of leaving the EU (there is an extensive thread about whether to stay or leave the EU)
A day or so ago I mentioned that there was an alternative opinion concerning the effects on the NHS of leaving the EU. Someone asked me to provide it, so I posted this :
Now my experience of Remainers on here is that they are straining on their leashes to have a go at someone who dares to suggest that leaving the EU could be beneficial. So you can imagine my surprise when it received not one single response. I was so sure that it would get a response that I had already prepared mine, ie, I was going to say "well I'm not going to argue about it, either accept or reject it". But nothing.
Still, if everyone is happy with what Dr David Owen had to say then I'm cool with that.
Still, if everyone is happy with what Dr David Owen had to say then I’m cool with that.
just read it - seems to have a lot of meat behind it.
points out some of the serious screw-ups in policy, some of which Cameron precided over, and the fact that not being in the EU gives us scope of reversing/changing them, whereas being in the EU doesn't really as those decisions are in line with where DO reckons the EU is heading.
I'll accept it 🙂
Just started to read that Owen piece. glaring factual errors right from the start. a classic case of making the facts fit the theory.
Thanks Ernie. This forum has missed your input.
My take from that article is UK govt has been doing just fine damaging the NHS through tendering out services and increased use of management consultants without the EU, although its in line with EU policues on competition?
Teej, would welcome your evidence to support your comment please?
The EU did not force competition on the NHS. What they did was ensure any competitive tendering element was fair and that contracts awarded could not be taken away without due process. There was no need under EU law to open up the NHS to competition at all. But once it is then tendering must be done in line with EU regs. So its actually the UK governments that opened up the NHS to competative tendering not the EU
aslo brexit is damaging to the NHS in far greater ways than remaining in the EU
I only got a few paragraphs in because once he started arguing from false premise then everything after that becomes valueless.
Thanks TJ
tjagain Member
So its actually the UK governments that opened up the NHS to competative tendering not the EU
So you obviously didn't read the link then. If you had actually read it you know that that is exactly the point that David Owen makes, he couldn't be clearer. He blamed Labour, the Tories, and the LibDems.
glaring factual errors right from the start. a classic case of making the facts fit the theory.
Why for the love of god would David Owen do that? Do you actually know who David Owen is? Did you read my original post? I can reposted if you want, it's easy enough to do.
I think what happened TJ is that you started to read the link and very quickly realised that it was going to make you feel extremely uncomfortable as it was going to challenge your own personal views on the EU, with in-depth, detailed, and carefully researched analysis, so you decided to abandon it.
You then posted "a classic case of making the facts fit the theory" without even reading it properly - which your later comment proves. You were probably trying to convince yourself as much as everyone else.
Thanks Ernie. This forum has missed your input.
Thank you. I doubt however that it's a universally held opinion.
ernielynch
Member
Thanks Ernie. This forum has missed your input.
Thank you. I doubt however that it’s a universally held opinion.
I think you might be surprised. One of the things I value this forum for is the multitude of views and few if any have your viewpoint. Anyway no one has called me a wishy washy pale pink liberal for a while 🙂
I think what happened TJ is that you started to read the link and very quickly realised that it was going to make you feel extremely uncomfortable as it was going to challenge your own personal views on the EU, with in-depth, detailed, and carefully researched analysis, so you decided to abandon it.
Not at all. Its not ther EU thats the issue, its successive government policies and his solution - leave the EU is going to be devastating to the NHS as US healthcare companies take it over, we lose co operation with the rest of europe and our drug costs go up.
I take your point - but I am sorry in my view that speech is simply fitting the facts to the outcome desired. Leaving the EU will not take us back to the 90s in the NHS. that horse has long bolted. Leaving the EU will only damage the NHS further
And of course also the basic mistake of referring to " the NHS" when actually he means " nhs england"
And of course also the basic mistake of referring to ” the NHS” when actually he means ” nhs england”
And right there is conclusive proof that you didn't read the link. How you can give your opinion on something which you haven't even bother reading is quite frankly beyond me. Can you explain to me how exactly that works?
Although to be fair to you, you did openly admit that you "only got a few paragraphs in". So why I'm even discussing it with you I don't really know.
David Owen knows exactly what he means. That's why he mentions "The English Health Department" "Today England is.." "...the north of England" "...health and care nursing workforce supply in England" "The population of England needs..."...40,000 unfilled nurse posts in England" "....the NHS midwifery shortage in England estimated at 3,500" "England is currently training around 20,000 nurses a year..." training applicants in England fell by..."
Its not ther EU thats the issue, its successive government policies
FFS why don't you read the link? David Owen makes it crystal clear the responsibility of successive governments, all of them - Labour, Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, and Conservative governments.
And you still haven't answered my question - why for the love of god would David Owen "make the facts fit the theory" as you claim? Do you actually know who he is? He's not another Nigel Farage you know. When he was in the Labour Party there was no one more pro-European than him, he put his own political at risk over his support for Europe.
Since you didn't bother reading the link I assume that you didn't bother reading my original post either, so no worries I'll copy and paste an edited version. Because who David Owen is, is highly relevant to how credible his opinions on Europe and the NHS are.
[The EU did not force competition on the NHS.
As far as I can see he didn't say this
" In fairness to the Commission, since 2002 the then Labour government,thenthe Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition government from 2010-2015 and now the Conservative government on its own, not under EU pressure, established an externalmarket in healthwith pressurisedtendering and contracting withprivate companies in the UK, EU and the US eager and willing to participate. "
You then posted “a classic case of making the facts fit the theory” without even reading it properly
that happens a lot on this forum 🙂
"The Strange Tale of Doctor David Owen"
Dr David Owen was of course the leading protagonist in the infamous “Gang Of Four”, the group of MPs who in 1981 broke away from the Labour Party to form their own political party. This course of action split the Labour vote and in no small way help to keep Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister for 10 years.
Dr David Owen’s motivation was based on 3 major Labour Party policies which he claimed he could never under any circumstances support, ie, nationalisation of the banks, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and withdrawal from the European Community.
Dr David Owen was a particularly strong supporter of the European Community. Indeed he felt so strongly about it that resigned from Harold Wilson’s shadow cabinet in 1972 over Labour’s refusal to back British entry to the EEC. His new party, the Social Democratic Party, formed an electoral alliance with the equally pro-European Liberal Party.
Eventually in 1988 the two parties formed the Liberal Democratic Party, at which point Dr David Owen appears to disappear into political oblivion.
Now I don’t know when, nor whether it was a gradual process or a Road to Damascus moment, but at some point between then and 1996 Dr David Owen transformed himself in a Eurosceptic. I know that it wasn’t after 1996 because he claims that Tony Blair attempted to seduce back into the Labour Party then with promises of a bright political future. A believable claim imo as Owen had been quite a political heavyweight previously in the Labour Party. He had been, among other things, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and Minister of State for Health and Social Security.
However he turned down the offer when he apparently realised that Blair was committed to taking Britain into the European currency (I think Gordon Brown won on that one) Owen claims that it was the “best decision I ever made in my life”.
Owen then pops up again in the political limelight just before the EU Referendum during the campaign. He is now a totally committed Brexiteer. Although the former physician hasn’t practised medicine for a long time healthcare and the NHS is still his passion, and he argues forcefully that it is vital to leave the EU to save the NHS. He led the Vote Leave ‘Save Our NHS’ campaign.
Ironical if he hadn’t done what did in a previous life Labour might have won the 1983 general election and the UK would have left the European Community.
That speech reads like a low-intensity moan about the EU using the NHS as a convenient excuse.
Westminster decided to install internal markets so the financial burden of that procurement bureaucracy is ours and will be after brexit. The opportunity he talks about is a 'light touch' system that is open to abuse and incompetent suppliers and subsequent legal challenges that would gum up our courts, which would cost more in the long run rather than the ECJ doing that on our behalf.
Meanwhile, drugs get more expensive, staff leave and we're still not in any position to fill the skills gap.
So - to wind back to the OP - the NHS isn't going to be financially improved by brexit, BJohnson knew it was a lie but said it repeatedly and I'm glad there is a politician going to court.
Well that's what I like to see........read something and then make your comments after you have read it.
I generally find that it works better like that.
Did you have much problem edhornby?
Careful now gentlemen if this continues in a thoughtful and considerate fashion they might role it out to the rest of the forum.
I read both your post and much of Owens article and stand by what I said. His analysis of what went wrong is reasonable, his conclusions cannot be supported by evidence. Plenty of wishful thinking from him like his comments on medicines regulation - he espouses either a deal with the euro agency - ruled out legally or with the FDA which would mean a whole load of other issues.
Leaving the EU means that the NHS will have to be opened up to predatory us healthcare companies as the cost of any UK / US trade deal and both his solutions for the regulation of medicines are complete non starters. We cannot turn the clock back
If yo are reading a piece and come across several things that are utter nonsense then its safe to say that the whole thesis is invalid. ~Arguing from false premises means conclusions are invalid.
Now if you want to pretend that the Brexit Party is a neo-Nazi party, while completely ignoring the fact that it was formed as a direct result of UKIP swinging to the far right and embracing the Islamophobia of fascist parties in Europe
Just want to pick up on this from the previous page, because it would seem that the opposite is true. The brexit party was formed from the splinters of UKIP because UKIP wasn't far-right enough.
This is worth a read:
https://twitter.com/Turloughc/status/1125805034015477760
If yo are reading a piece and come across several things that are utter nonsense then its safe to say that the whole thesis is invalid
That's the same conclusion I came to when I read your bit saying that leaving the EU means the NHS "will have to" be opened up to ......
So at least we can agree on one thing.
This is worth a read
You lied to me Cougar!
So anyway you're suggesting that UKIP lost 80% of their councillors in the local elections a couple of weeks ago because they were now too left-wing?
Btw you have to be careful how you use terms left and right when applied to facists and nazis. There's a case to be made that the Fascist Party under Mussolini was significantly more left-wing than the Tories are today. However the Nazis, with their policies of mass privatisation, were no less right-wing than the Tories. To complicate matters the Italian Fascists weren't racist, certainly not by the standards of the time.
I generally (although not exclusively) use the term far-right in its modern context of meaning a party that is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, sectarian, and misogynist.
Ernie - the NHS being opened up to american healthcare providers is a key aim of the US in any US / UK trade talks. As our bargaining position will be so poor we will have no option. The american drug companies want us to pay more for drugs as well.
Add to the the issues over regulation and reseach then yes - its without a doubt that the NHS will be destoyed by brexit. Privatisation of the NHS is a key aim of most right wing brexiteers
racist, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, sectarian, and sectarian.
So we're talking mainly about the DUP?
Is it also misogynist martinhutch? I edited my post because I buggered up the charge sheet against the far right.
“This effort to change other nations' health policies will be driven by the US Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer when he is negotiating deals to avoid application of US tariffs or, in the case of the UK, a bilateral trade deal post-Brexit,” said Brandon Barford, a partner at Washington-based Beacon Policy Advisors.
“The second goal is that, for the UK in particular, trade negotiations will likely occur in the run-up to the US Presidential election in November 2020.
“The President and his team want to be able to use the NHS and NICE as a foil for his plan that reduces costs for consumers at the point of sale, but without rationing and access restrictions for which the UK system is infamous in the US, particularly amongst conservative media.”
Is it also misogynist martinhutch?
Stop moving the goalposts!
The DUP is against everything, including women, so still fits your criteria. 🙂
Ernie – the NHS being....etc.....etc
TJ please please, I have absolutely no intention of trying to convince you of anything.
I didn't post that link because I thought it might change someone's mind with regards to Brexit, I'm not a ****. I simply posted it because I had mentioned that there is an alternative opinion which claims that leaving the EU will be good for the NHS, and someone said they would like to see it.
Although if I'm completely honest I don't think they really did, they probably just didn't believe that there was an alternative opinion. After all the general consensus on here (although to be fair not everyone) is that anyone who supports leaving the EU must be a pig shit thick racist who doesn't bother to think.
I also did it because it amused to think how they were going to justify calling Dr David Owen a pig shit thick racist.
You lied to me Cougar!
OK, it's worth a read in my opinion.
So anyway you’re suggesting that UKIP lost 80% of their councillors in the local elections a couple of weeks ago because they were now too left-wing?
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. You were talking about how it was formed, not why councillors subsequently jumped ship.
Btw you have to be careful how you use terms left and right when applied to facists and nazis.
I dunno much about any of that TBH.
After all the general consensus on here (although to be fair not everyone) is that anyone who supports leaving the EU must be a pig shit thick racist who doesn’t bother to think.
How often do I have to counter this assertion?
It's not that anyone - or at least, not that most people - think that "anyone who supports leaving the EU must be a pig shit thick racist," rather that it's where all the pig shit thick racists gravitated towards. It's a subtle but important difference and it's somewhat disingenuous to imply otherwise.
You were talking about how it was formed, not why councillors subsequently jumped ship.
What councillors jumped ship? I'm not aware of any councillors jumping ship. The reason UKIP lost 80% of their councillors in the elections 4 weeks ago was presumably because voters no longer liked what they had become, there was no alternative brexit party for them to vote for in that election. I don't think the majority of former UKIP voters suddenly decided that they were now remainers.
Embracing Tommy Robinson with his ideology of hatred towards Muslims and defending the right to make "jokes" about raping women obviously did UKIP no favours at all. Which backs up my claim that the British people feel a natural revulsion towards that sort of politics. In stark contrast in many EU countries stand on an anti-Muslim ticket and you stand a fair chance of winning. Cougar you once said that people should be worried who they "jump into bed with", next time you say that think about who you are willing to "jump into bed with" in the EU.
No, I know it's not a valid comment, but you made it. It would be as ridiculous as claiming that because UKIP and the BNP are opposed to the Tories you should vote Tory, otherwise you are just as bad as UKIP and the BNP.
On the question of the Brexit Party being "more" right-wing than UKIP which apparently some people are claiming, it is such a weird claim to make. It is completely impossible for the Brexit Party to be more right-wing than UKIP, or any other party, it has no policies. Presumably we are actually talking about some people's opinions that the Brexit Party "might" become more right-wing than UKIP on economic matters.
But I really wouldn't worry too much about it. Firstly it's the voters perception of what the party is that matters here. And the general perception is that the Brexit Party is a party that supports leaving the EU but is more moderate and less racist/islamophobic/misogynist than UKIP. That's what voters believe they have voted for. Which I have to admit that although I wouldn't vote for a party led by Nigel Farage I find that extremely encouraging.
The second reason I wouldn't worry is that the Brexit Party is doomed, it has within itself the seeds of its own destruction. UKIP tore itself apart after winning the previous EU election, it lost every single of its 24 MEPs through bickering. UKIP has only ever once won control of a local authority, Thanet, and within months their majority had collapsed through bickering and arguing. The more power they get the more they argue, they simply can't organise a piss up in a brewery. In the case of the Brexit Party, and the political mishmash it represents, you can magnify that a hundred times. Nigel Farage? Claire Fox? Rachel Johnson? Ann Widdecombe? You're kidding me.
it’s where all the pig shit thick racists gravitated towards
Yes but there's a reason for that, it's not inevitable. Or to paraphrase Harold Macmillan, (the greatest Tory Prime Minister Britain has ever had) events my dear boy, events.
If you are actually interested Cougar, and since you're willing to accept that fascism and nazism isn't your greatest forte, I can elaborate on that. Although it's so off topic that it really should be on another/new thread.
What councillors jumped ship? I’m not aware of any councillors jumping ship. The reason UKIP lost 80% of their councillors in the elections 4 weeks ago was presumably because voters no longer liked what they had become, there was no alternative brexit party for them to vote for in that election. I don’t think the majority of former UKIP voters suddenly decided that they were now remainers.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were meaning. Point stands though, you asked about party formation, not how people voted.
Cougar you once said that people should be worried who they “jump into bed with”, next time you say that think about who you are willing to “jump into bed with” in the EU.
That's kind of a broad brush though, isn't it. In any case, even if the EU is Teh Evilz as the tabloids and gammons would have us believe, we're still in a better position as a member than on the outside looking in. Doubly so if the alternative is a disorderly exit, which even a "good" brexit stands to be.
If you are actually interested Cougar, and since you’re willing to accept that fascism and nazism isn’t your greatest forte, I can elaborate on that. Although it’s so off topic that it really should be on another/new thread.
Sure. TBH, I know very little about politics generally. It's only since the referendum that I've taken any interest at all. I've been reading up on stuff for the last three years but outside of brexit I'm pretty much clueless.
Okay, I really wouldn't claim to be an expert about anything Cougar but I have had an interest in politics since my childhood. To understand why we are where we are today, and why the far right has developed as it has in the UK, you need to look at the past. And btw Britain's imperial past is central to this.
In the 1930s the British Nazis/Fascist party was the British Union of Fascists led by Oswald Mosley. Despite having been in both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party Mosley was a totally committed Nazi and close to Hitler. He married of the famous Mitford sisters Diana, who was also a committed Nazi and admirer of Hitler. During much of the war both Mosley and his wife were interned, as most active fascists were at the time.
After the war Mosley and his followers decided to re-engage with politics. Now Mosley might have been a fascist but he wasn't stupid, he was a realist and intelligent enough to realise that that there was no future for the British Empire. The liberation of Europe had made it very difficult to justify the subjugation the peoples of the Empire. Besides, Britain was no longer the primary global power now, the United States was. Supporting the creaking British Empire did not serve US interests.
So Mosley focused instead on something which had always been at the heart of fascist and nazi ideology - the unification of Europe. The term "axis" as in the Axis Powers of WW2, comes from a speech made Mussolini in 1936 after an Italian-German treaty in which he said “This Berlin-Rome protocol is not a barrier, it is rather an axis around which all European States animated by a desire for peace may collaborate on troubles” In other words Europe would be united around the leadership of Italy and Germany.
Now I've posted this link before recently somewhere, might even be on this thread, but here again is the party which Moseley formed postwar :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Movement
Mosley perceived a linear growth within British history and he saw Europe a Nation as the culmination of this destiny. Therefore, he argued that it was "part of an organic process of British history", as Britain had united into one nation, and that it was Britain's national destiny to unite the whole continent
Needless to say it wasn't a success. Later in the 1960s he formed National Party of Europe which was a pan-European party, that obviously wasn't a success either. Most of its supporters outside the UK were former German Nazis and Italian Fascists. Only the Italian Fascists, MSI, had any sort of electoral success.
Now Mosley wasn't the only far right politician at that time, Arthur K. Chesterton, another former member of the British Union of Fascists, led a group of mostly Conservative Party members called The League of Empire Loyalists. As the name suggests, the League of Empire Loyalists wanted to preserve the British Empire. This of course put them completely at odds with the pro-European far right, for them Europe was a threat which threaten Britain's ties with the Empire and Commonwealth.
The League of Empire Loyalists were particularly incensed when Harold Macmillan (the greatest Tory Prime Minister Britain ever had) made his famous "Wind of Change" speech in 1960, in which he made the case against white rule and in favour of decolonisation. With clearly no place for them in the Tory party Chesterton went on to help set up the National Front Party.
By that time Mosley had pretty much given up on politics and the NF had all the far right, racist, and neo-Nazi, territory to themselves. The NF was of course very opposed to the EEC, its propaganda in the 60s and 70s talked of much closer links with the "white" commonwealth, "our kith and kin" as they always liked to refer to them as. They were of course extremely supportive of white minority rule in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, as indeed were many right-wing Tory MPs.
The NF led to the BNP and by that point all far right UK racists were firmly opposed to the One Nation/United Europe dream of Oswald Mosley. Oh I almost forgot, Oswald Mosley;s wife long outlived him and she remained a devoted fascist and pro-European Union until her dying breath.
Diana Mosley lived in Paris and this is what she had to say about Jean-Marie Le Pen, the then leader of France's far right racist party the National Front :
"I’ve had a look at Le Pen’s programme," she confides from her Paris apartment. "He is just a crusty old Eurosceptic Tory backbencher, everything I most dislike. In all essentials, and in particular with respect to Europe, his views are the opposite of mine. Mosley was a dedicated European and could never have got together with Le Pen."
https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle-2-15039/the-other-lady-diana-1-504476
If Mosley was still alive today she would be very happy to learn that although the French NF had been anti-EEC/EU since its foundation in 1972 since earlier this year it now supports EU membership. Presumably the rise of the racist far right across the EU has helped them to come to this historic decision.
I was going to mention Enoch Powell, the man who would have been last Viceroy of India, as he's quite important to this story, in terms of racism, empire, and anti-Europe, but that's a whole lot more stuff, way too much.
So this is why we are where we are Cougar......events dear boy, events, as Harold Macmillan (the greatest Tory Prime Minister Britain ever had) might have said. FFS I'm starting to sound like Rudyard Kipling! I think it's all this talk of Empire.
events dear boy, events
well I enjoyed reading your post anyway ! Interesting.
sometimes I regret being in IT as I have to spend so much of my spare time learning new stuff instead of reading about other stuff.