jeffs post
LONDON — Britain today confronts a variety of deep, even existential, uncertainties. The terms of its exit from the European Union, the country’s long-term economic prospects and Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom are all in the balance. In contrast to these unknowns, the outcome of the general election on June 8 already feels concrete: The Conservatives, consistently between 17 percent and 20 percent ahead in the polls, are on course for a landslide victory.
In calling this election (despite promises not to) and in her campaigning for it, Prime Minister Theresa May is exploiting this contrast. The Conservatives are being presented as a new type of “people’s party,” under which everyone can huddle to stay safe from the multiple storms that are brewing. Mrs. May and her party are treating this election as too important to be reduced to political divides. With no explanation of how, she claims that “every single vote for me and Conservative candidates will be a vote that strengthens my hand in the negotiations for Brexit.”
This is where Mrs. May’s strategy and rhetoric become disconcerting. Ever since she took over from David Cameron last summer, she has spoken as if Britain is a nation harmoniously united, aside from the divisive forces of party politics and liberal elites seeking to thwart the “will of the people.” The first part of this is simply untrue: Forty-eight percent of the public voted to remain in the European Union, while the other 52 percent held various ideas of what leaving could or should mean in practice.
Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain speaks at the Dhamecha Lohana Centre in Harrow, England, on Monday. CreditPool photo by Stefan Rousseau
Mrs. May’s idea that her opponents are merely playing self-interested political “games” is a classic populist trope, one that suggests that constitutional democracy is really an obstacle standing between people and leader. The prime minister’s rhetoric since calling the general election has implied that the best outcome for “the national interest” would be to eradicate opposition altogether, whether that be in the news media, Parliament or the judiciary. For various reasons (not least the rise of the Scottish National Party) it is virtually impossible to imagine the Labour Party achieving a parliamentary majority ever again, as Mrs. May well knows. To put all this another way, the main purpose of this election is to destroy two-party politics as Britain has known it since 1945.
One way in which Mrs. May has aggressively pursued this outcome is in her unusual framing of the choice before the British electorate. We are used to politicians presenting policy proposals and promises to the public. Of course, in practice this involves spin doctors seeking to cast their party’s policies in the best light, news outlets twisting the message depending on their political biases and many voters turning away in disgust because they don’t believe a word politicians say. That’s the routine.
The Labour Party, despite occasional populist swipes at the news media, has been sticking roughly to this script. There is a certain irony in this, seeing as Labour, under the socialist leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, has become viewed by many pundits and voters as an implausible party of government. But Labour has nevertheless been regularly putting out clear and reasonably worked-out policy proposals since the election was announced on April 18.
By contrast, Mrs. May has made scarcely any statements regarding policy. Her speeches and campaign literature are peppered with the slogan “strong and stable leadership,” a phrase she then recites on the few occasions that she takes questions from journalists or members of the public. The very basis on which she is asking to be trusted and to be elected seems different from an ordinary policy platform. From a leader of a party still in thrall to Margaret Thatcher, Mrs. May’s virtual silence on the economy is astonishing. The decision to vote Conservative is not to be based on knowledge of what a Conservative government will do — nobody has much of a clue about anything right now — but because of the desperate need for “strong and stable leadership.”
---
May doesn't speak to us in the recognisable language of a first world liberal democracy. Like all tyrants, she loathes our proud heritage of human rights. Her inauthentic glittering generalities, delivered robot-style, mask an underlying ideological narrative of scorched earth neoliberal policies. Policies that she won't share with us. The narrative is written in the language of despots, that's why.
If you think I am overstating the case, here, remember May's previous comments about the need for a Bill of Rights that doesn't "bind the hands of parliament". The Conservatives still intend to try and scrap our Human Rights Act. This is very worrying, since human rights were designed originally to protect citizens from despotic states and authoritarian governments like this one.
The Conservatives have already taken away legal aid, which is so clearly contrary to the very principle of equality under the law. In fact they have turned legal aid into an instrument of discrimination. The government has also tried to dismantle another vital legal protection – judicial review – which has been used to stop them from abusing political power on several occasions.
The years immediately after the second world war marked a turning point in the history of human rights, as the world reeled in horror at the rise of fascism and the Nazi concentration camps, there came an important realisation that although fundamental rights should be respected as a matter of course, without formal protection, human rights concepts are of little use and consolation to those facing persecution.
So in response to the atrocities committed during the war, the international community sought to define the rights and freedoms necessary to secure the dignity and worth of each individual. In 1948 the newly formed United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), one of the most important agreements in world history.
Democracy is one of the universal core values and principles of the United Nations. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the principle of holding periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy. These values are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further developed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which enshrines a host of political rights and civil liberties underpinning meaningful democracies.
A legally binding human rights framework must be applied universally, and implemented without the "interpretation" and interference from individual governments. Furthermore, the State must fund the means of contract enforcement and free and fair trial legal costs, for those who cannot afford it.
If the State fails to fulfil this contingent function, then citizens simply cease to be free.
I don't think this May's government has indicated that it has the needs and wellbeing of citizens as a main priority.
Kitty S Jones.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 13 May 2017
==============================
A damning indictment on the dangerous failure of privatisation in the criminal justice system by a former Tory MP
by davidhencke
Jerry-Hayes
Jerry Hayes, practising criminal barrister and former Tory MP for Harlow Pic Credit:Goldsmith Chambers
CROSS POSTED ON BYLINE.COM
I am reblogging this from the site of Jerry Hayes, a former Tory MP and practising criminal barrister. He is highlighting the dangers of miscarriages of justice since the Forensic Science Service was privatised by David Cameron because private companies are cutting corners and not doing a proper job. The person here could have been imprisoned for seven years as a result of their negligence.
THE SCANDAL THAT UNDERMINES OUR ONCE GREAT SYSTEM OF JUSTICE
10 May 2017 at 07:09
I never blog on cases, but today I must break my rule. Yesterday I discovered a scandalous state of affairs which could have led to an innocent man going to jail for a substantial period of time. I will not name the defendant nor the court for obvious reasons. In forty years of practice at the bar this shook my faith in what was once the finest and fairest justice system in the world. Read this and weep. And mourn for British justice.
Yesterday I was sent to the Crown Court to offer no evidence in a firearms case. I had been instructed some weeks ago as Prosecution counsel. Let me give you a thumbnail sketch. Last year the police searched a van. In this van was a tool box and in this tool box were founds guns and ammunition. This comprised of an 8mm blank firing pistol converted to be a lethal weapon. An empty magazine belonging to that hand gun. A Glock self loading hand gun. The magazine from this handgun contained two live rounds. And three further live rounds were found in a knotted bag. It goes without saying that the possession of these items is a very serious offence and carries a minimum sentence of five years for the guns and a consecutive sentence for the ammunition. Anyone convicted potentially faces a sentence of imprisonment of seven years upwards.
The guns and ammunition were forensically examined. The laboratory gave the police what is called a Streamlined Forensic Report (SFR). It came to this conclusion, ‘a match exists between the defendant and the sample’. In other words the defendant’s DNA was found on one of the magazines.
This was served on the CPS and duly uploaded onto the digital case system, effectively serving this on the court and the defence. An SFR is precisely that, and both prosecution and defence are entitled to see the full report. But very often it is taken at face value. As there was no other evidence the CPS reviewing lawyer wanted further information. He asked for more information. Was there a mixed profile? How strong was the DNA? He received obfuscation from the lab. ‘The SFR provided indicated that a number of results were subject to progress.’ But the lawyer was dogged in his determination and finally received this bombshell. ‘The lab confirms due to confusion they have never compared mixed profiles against the defendant.’ They also stated that ‘progress means there are no additional findings’. Then came this chilling line. ‘The lab refused to elaborate any further……’
The reviewing lawyer reported the following,‘I am concerned that the language used in the SFR appears to assert positive and ongoing actions when they are clearly negative. I have requested the OIC to obtain an email from the forensic officer confirming the phone communication and what is implied in the SFR…..he confirmed that the report was misleading.’
The CPS, underfunded, overworked and creaking at the seams comes in for a lot of criticism. In this case the reviewing lawyer deserves a herogram.
Yesterday when I offered no evidence I explained to the judge in detail what had happened. I will never forget the look of horror on his face. There will be a thorough judicial investigation.
And yesterday SKY NEWS reported that a private forensic laboratory had ‘manipulated data.’ What the hell is happening? I will tell you. In 2010 the government announced that the national forensic service (the FSS) was to be closed down and forensic analysis would be privatised. Let me be clear that the FSS has had its fair share of cock ups. But the government announcement prompted horror from professionals. The National Audit Office warned, ‘this could spark a crisis within the justice system.’ They were right. Soon the court of appeal will be swamped. Will someone, somewhere listen? I won’t hold my breath.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 11 May 2017
=============================
the truth the whole truth nothing but liars
The Conservative Party won hundreds of seats in the local elections. And this is obviously bad news for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn supporters. But media coverage of the results has ignored one crucial factor: none of the people who’ve registered to vote in the recent registration surge were eligible to vote in the local elections. Furthermore, the media glossed over the fact that the turnout of registered voters was only around 36%.
It’s all in the timing
Registration for voting in the local elections closed on 13 April 2017 in England and Wales. But since Theresa May announced the general election on 18 April, there has been a massive surge in people registering to vote. In fact, 934,600 people have applied since the announcement. And, therefore, none of these people would be have been able to vote in the local elections.
The turnout is also significant. There was a five-point increase from the 2013 local elections. But voting in those elections was at an all time-low. So, the Tories may have gained seats. But they’ve done it with nearly two-thirds of the electorate not voting.
Students and young voters
It would obviously be wrong to claim that every new voter registration or every person who didn’t vote are supporters of progressive politics, let alone Corbyn.
ADVERTISING
But there are elements of the figures which do show substantial hope for Corbyn. In particularly, the number of students and young people registering to vote. As The Canary previously reported, in just three days, 103,439 18-to-24-year-olds registered.
And this surge has continued. Importantly this age group are much more likely to vote Labour. According to polls, Labour has a 19% lead in this age group.
Meanwhile, 93% of students say they are registered to vote. And student support for Labour has leapt to 55% under Corbyn, according to research from the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) and YouthSight. This is a huge increase. Towards the end of Ed Miliband’s leadership in 2015, student support for Labour sat at 35%. Under Tony Blair in 2005, only 23% backed Labour.
It’s all in the turnout
The question remains how many of those registering to vote actually turn out on the day. In 2015, only 43% of those under 25 voted compared to 78% of those over 65. And analysis shows this discrepancy in the turnout benefited the Tories.
But Corbyn has offered young people a different sort of politics and he is making every effort to get them to vote. And it shouldn’t be a surprise that they like Corbyn. Voters in this age group have lived with Conservative or Coalition governments for most of their adult lives. And these governments have taken away their benefits, increased tuition fees, and destroyed their NHS. At the same time, young people have been priced out of the housing market and told they will likely work for longer than their parents, for less. And 38% of all zero hours contracts are held by those under 25.
It’s not a done deal
The local election results were not good for Labour. But equally they are not the general election results and a Tory landslide is not a done deal. By not mentioning newly registered voters who couldn’t vote and not emphasising the low turnout, the media is ignoring the nearly two-thirds of the population who didn’t have a say. And this only favours Theresa May and the Tories.
But if people continue registering and actually use their votes, it could be a very different picture. And the combination could still mean disastrous news for May.
Posted by jeffrey davies [86.17.83.77] on 07 May 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
nhs gone
We all know the Conservative Party is busy de-funding the National Health Service, in order to stop it working properly and breed discontent. This will soften the public attitude to privatisation, even though it means most of us would not be able to afford private health.
But the polls say many of us will vote for the Tories regardless.
Why?
Are they blind to what’s happening already? Can’t they see that the Tories are deliberately harming the service we all receive, and then blaming its bosses rather than taking responsibility for their own political decisions? Look:
Anyone who blows the whistle on the Tories’ evil – yes, evil; people die because of these decisions – behaviour is penalised. Look at Dr Chris Day, who pointed out dangerous staff shortages caused by Tory polices at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich, and subsequently lost the right to progress in his career. What a reward, just because he cared for patients’ interests!
Dr Day has since won the right to appeal against his treatment, with the hearing to include evidence from Health Education England on why he was punished for exposing a danger to patients. Read the story here.
The simple fact is, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote to kill your health service. And don’t delude yourself: A Tory, privatised health system won’t mean you’ll pay less tax – they’ve messed up the economy far too much for that. No – Theresa May plans to increase taxes – although her news media are euphemistically reporting it as failing to rule out such rises.
So when you go to vote on June 8 (or before, if you have a postal vote), think about all the times you’ve had to rely on your local GP, or had an appointment at a hospital for an operation. Maybe you’ve even had to rely on Accident and Emergency departments. Think of all the people whose lives have been saved because they didn’t have to pay a fortune before anybody would lift a finger.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 07 May 2017
