#labour deputy leadership

[tmcphotoblog]

Remembering John Prescott: a true character of British politics. From his time as Deputy PM, championing Labour values, to his surprising turn on Top Gear, where his wit and humor bridged divides. Liked on both sides of the aisle, he left a mark on politics and pop culture alike. RIP.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kiran Stacey at The Guardian:

Labour has announced its biggest step yet in overhauling the UK’s approach to the Middle East, dropping its opposition to an international arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu despite pressure from Washington not to do so. Downing Street announced on Friday that the government would not submit a challenge to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, whose chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, is seeking a warrant against the Israeli prime minister. The move makes it more likely that the ICC will now grant Khan’s request, in what would be a stunning international rebuke for Israel over the way it has conducted the war in Gaza and put Netanyahu at risk of arrest if he travels abroad. It also reverses months of British policy after the previous government was steadfast in its support of Israel and its desire to stick closely to the US position.

Ministers are expected to announce further changes within days, including the results of a review of Israel’s compliance with international law. The foreign secretary, David Lammy, has also signalled that he is considering banning some arms sales to Israel. The prime minister’s deputy official spokesperson said: “On the submission, this was a proposal by the previous government that was not submitted before the election. I can confirm the government will not be pursuing that in line with our longstanding position that this is a matter for the court to decide on. “The government feels very strongly about the rule of law internationally and domestically, and the separation of powers, and I would note the courts have already received a number of submissions on either side and they are well seized of the arguments to make their determination.” She would not be drawn on whether the government had a view on whether a warrant should be issued for Netanyahu’s arrest, saying it was a matter for the courts.

The United Kingdom, under new Labour leadership, is dropping its challenge to the ICC arrest warrants for Israel Apartheid State leaders.

[ukrfeminism]

Though British farming is arguably at the most precarious point in its long history – thanks to changes caused by Brexit and food industry subsidies, lack of clear food production policies and increased concern over environmental issues – more women than ever are choosing a career in agriculture and, more importantly, moving into leadership roles.

Back in the 1970s, Holly Collins was studying for her A-levels in Sussex. While her friends sent off their university applications, she wrote to the Royal Agricultural College asking for an entry form, hoping to follow her dream of becoming a farmer.

“They wrote back with the following answer: ‘Dear Miss Collins, we do not admit women.’”

Undeterred, she worked on a farm the following summer: “A lot of the tasks then were manual labour, so I’d just turn up at the farm gate and ask for a job. I was paid much less than the male students I worked with because I was female. The farmer’s father told him that, because I was the hardest worker, he should pay me the same as them – but he didn’t.”

Things, says the 64-year-old who now has her own upland farm, Hollin Bank, at the head of Coniston Water in the Lake District, have improved a lot for women in agriculture since then.

Though British farming is arguably at the most precarious point in its long history – thanks to changes caused by Brexit and food industry subsidies, lack of clear food production policies and increased concern over environmental issues – more women than ever are choosing a career in agriculture and, more importantly, moving into leadership roles.

Minette Batters, the first ever female president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales (NFU), may have stepped down this spring after six years in office, but women are still well represented in the union, with Rachel Hallos, a South Pennines farmer, installed as NFU vice-president and Abi Reader as deputy president for NFU Cymru. The Great Yorkshire Show has just got its first female show director in its 186-year history – dairy farmer Rachel Coates takes over after this year’s show in July. In the field of specialist skills, the UK has also just appointed its first female wool grader. Amy-Jo Barton, 22, is based at British Wool (formerly the British Wool Marketing Board) in Bradford where she sorts wool by hand based on style and characteristics; a job she finds “very therapeutic”.

While women comprised 17% of farmers in 2019, data from the Office for National Statistics for 2023 shows that of the 104,700 registered farmers, 22% are female. In the broader category of managers in agricultural services, women make up 32% of the workforce. According to recent figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, 64% of agricultural students are women. For an industry that historically relies on father-to-son succession to pass on land and which used to exclude women from many of its educational establishments, farming has come a long way.

Coates, incoming director of the Great Yorkshire Show, says: “Women have always been the backbone of a farm. Now they’re no longer in the kitchen tied to the Aga, they’re at the forefront of the industry. It’s good to see this take-up of leadership roles.”

Louisa Dines, principal lecturer in agronomy at Harper Adams University in Shropshire, thinks farming has lagged behind in terms of gender diversity but is finally catching up with other industries.

“Farmers’ wives and daughters were always important – farms are typically family businesses and intertwined with home life – but women used to operate below the radar,” she says. “Historically local meetings were in the pub or village hall. Wives often weren’t invited or had to look after the children. Even if they did go, it can be intimidating walking into a room full of men, but new communication platforms – such as social media and video conferencing – have made it easier for women to take part.”

There are more than 14,000 members of the Facebook group Ladies Who Lamb and farmers such as the Yorkshire Shepherdess and the Red Shepherdess have huge followings on TikTok and Instagram. Dines says she recently attended an agritech conference to promote links between women in farming in Poland, Ukraine and England. Previously these women had worked in isolation but not had a sense of community. “It was so interesting to see how far we’ve come.”

Traditions need to change more, though. The average age of a British farmer is 59 and the business is still typically passed down the male side of the family. A 2022 survey in Northern Ireland found that inheritance was the second biggest challenge faced by women in farming. The biggest was male dominance.

Molly Lewis, whose family have farmed sheep on 250 acres of pasture in Powys, Wales, for 350 years, says this attitude is starting to shift. The 20-year-old plans to take over when her father and his brother retire. She splits her time between working in the family business and the local agricultural market.

“In the past, sometimes men felt pressured to take on the farm even if their heart wasn’t in it, but now it goes to whoever is interested. I’ve noticed a lot more women happily getting involved. It feels natural, especially here. We have an open hill farm in the Elan Valley, and do a lot of community work with all our neighbours. You see women and girls on the hills doing the same jobs as the men and no one thinks anything of it.”

Lewis also talks of the community’s fury at the Welsh government’s sustainable farming scheme – the post-Brexit plan for funding the industry which includes ensuring 10% of farmland is under tree cover.

Collins’s farm has low densities of mixed livestock and a nice sideline in educational courses teaching traditional farming skills such as dry stone walling and coppicing. It’s currently host to two masters students researching finance and birdlife. She brought in two women – Megan Jones and Katherine Andrews – to manage Hollin Bank alongside her.

She says she has had difficulties with “a lack of respect” from male farmers. “But I am learning at a late age and from the wonderful young women who work with me that you don’t have to instil fear in others to succeed in this very male world. We try to be warm and encouraging of anyone who is interested. I’m not sure this is a ‘female’ attitude to farming but I suspect it might be.”

None of the three at Hollin Bank grew up in agricultural families, bucking the tradition of succession. While Collins had a “striking ambition” to farm her whole life, her colleagues originally worked in conservation and nature restoration.

“As 70% of the UK is farmland, I wanted to understand how conservation and agriculture intertwine,” says Andrews. “I also believe we need to localise the food economy to save food miles, create jobs and deepen our connection to the land.”

If farming is in crisis it may be this new generation who look to change the status quo who will be able to find a resolution. All of them seem keen to evolve. Coates’s big ambition for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society is to engage young people because “we need to make farming relevant – there are going to be changes in agriculture over the next few years and we need to adapt”.

Dines points to the increased importance of marketing and communication – from farm shops and crafts to environmentally friendly farming practice – “all the public-facing activities at which women excel”.

Jones, who worked in restoration before joining Hollin Bank two years ago, also points to the need for communication within the indusry as well as with the public.

“We need to strengthen food systems that value farmers’ extensive knowledge of the landscapes they work in,” she says. “I think we need to listen to farmers and figure out what works financially and ecologically. How can we build resilient ecosystems?”

The reason so many more women have moved into farming is perhaps best explained when Jones talks about what she enjoys most about her work.

“My favourite thing about working on a farm is the daily and seasonal rhythms. Each day you adapt and respond to the environment and the animals. Days when we move the sheep or cows are always good days, walking with them is like a moving meditation. For someone who spent very little time doing practical work growing up, I find working with my hands very rewarding and empowering – especially as a woman.”

[mariacallous]

It would, Grant Shapps says, be bad news for British democracy if Labour won too large a majority next month. For a moment I wondered whether his words reflected a realisation that his own party had only been able to manage stable government this century when it was in coalition with someone else, but I don’t think this was his point. 

It’s true that governments with small majorities are more constrained, but this isn’t obviously a good thing. Our years of Brexit deadlock were only broken once the government had a comfortable majority. And if you believe, as some on the right claim they do, that Britain needs planning reform and plenty of housebuilding, then a Labour government with a large majority is the likeliest route to those things. Certainly the Conservatives haven’t been able to deliver them with theirs.

But let me offer a different counterargument: it would be very good for our democracy for the Conservative Party to suffer a crushing defeat. The Conservatives have behaved terribly in government, and politicians, like children, need to know that their actions have consequences.

In 2019, British voters were faced with an unusual and appalling situation: a choice between two men both utterly unfit to be prime minister. Leaving aside Jeremy Corbyn’s political abilities — he could never persuade even Labour MPs that he ought to head a government — and his instincts — he would go on to suggest the British government had provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — he had neither the temperament nor the intellect for the top job. So voters opted for what they perceived to be the lesser of two evils.

The result was that Labour paid a price for offering an unfit leader, and the Conservatives were rewarded. And that has been a bad thing. It told Tories that integrity in public life was optional. Boris Johnson, of course, needed no encouragement on that score, but his weak-minded followers, in Parliament, on his staff, and in the media, thought they had won a free pass. “Voters don’t care,” we were assured, after each fresh scandal broke. Until it turned out that they did. 

For all their later cries of anguish as Boris Johnson’s character was laid bare on the public stage, Conservatives knew exactly who he was when they made him prime minister. If the precise details of his downfall were pleasingly novel — who had “locks up the nation while hosting a series of wild parties” on their bingo card? — it was no surprise that he thought rules were for other people and lied as was convenient. This had been his entire career. I hope my colleague Paul Goodman will forgive me reminding him of what was surely the greatest ever ConservativeHome editorial, which suggested that Johnson should be prime minister, but with rival Jeremy Hunt as a deputy, to handle the tedious business of running the country. Has any endorsement ever been less enthusiastic?

Conservative MPs knew who Johnson was during the 2019 election campaign, when he insisted his Brexit proposals wouldn’t create a regulatory border in the Irish Sea. Did any Tory correct the prime minister as he misled voters about a key feature of the deal that was the centrepiece of his election campaign? Of course not. Voters don’t care!

And that’s just Johnson. Is there any Conservative out there who wants to argue that, since their party took sole charge of the country in 2015, they have been a good government? Four years spent arguing about Brexit followed by 18 months of a lockdown policy that was conspicuously more interested in pubs than schools, and then three years of infighting. There are bright spots — the vaccine and the leadership on Ukraine — but the main theme has been chaos. We have had as many chancellors of the exchequer in the last nine years as we did in the preceding 30. 

And what is there to show for it? The party’s central economic policy has been to make it harder for British businesses to sell things to France. And, in fairness, it has achieved that — even if, for some reason, Conservatives are now reluctant to talk about it. Take that away, and you’re left with what? High taxes and a crumbling public realm. For months now, the most damning criticism of the state of the country at Prime Minister’s Questions has come from the Tory benches, as MPs complain that their constituents can’t see dentists or doctors. Not even Conservative MPs think that life is good under the Conservatives.

So I’m happy for the party to be crushed. I don’t go quite as far as the 46 per cent of the public who say Conservatives deserve to lose every seat, but I could live with that result far more easily than the party holding 250 seats. 

I want the Conservative Party from 2015 to 2024 to be a cautionary tale that politics professors whisper to terrify their students. Because if you can govern this badly, behave this badly, without any consequences, that would bode very ill indeed for our democracy.

[toiletpotato]

the caption for the picture in the article states "NZ Prime Minister Chris Luxon's office has confirmed taxpayers paid for his Māori language classes."

article transcription below "keep reading"! (emphasis mine)

written by Ben McKay, last updated at 2.15 am on 18 Dec 2023

--

As New Zealand grapples with a new style of government and approach to the Māori language, Prime Minister Chris Luxon has fallen foul of his advice to the public service.

Mr Luxon appears guilty of a double standard after scolding bureaucrats for taking cash bonuses for understanding the Māori language, te reo, while using taxpayer funds to learn it himself.

Mr Luxon recently confirmed his government would axe payments to te reo-speaking public servants and criticised those who took the bonuses.

"People are completely free to learn for themselves," he said.

"That's what happens out there in the real world, in corporate life, or any other community life across New Zealand.

"I've got a number of MPs, for example, that have made a big effort to learn te reo ... they've driven that learning themselves because they want to do it.

"In the real world outside of Wellington and outside the bubble of MPs, people who want to learn te reo or want to learn any other education actually pay for it themselves."

However, Mr Luxon did not follow his advice.

After repeated requests, the prime minister's office confirmed taxpayers paid for Mr Luxon's classes through a budget offered to the leader of the opposition, saying it was "highly relevant" to his role.

"I think it makes me a better prime minister," he said on Monday.

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins said te reo was "a national treasure" and learning it should be incentivised.

"Christopher Luxon should be commended for learning Māori, but it's absolute hypocrisy for his government to then set about cancelling the taxpayer subsidies he used to do so, thus denying others that same opportunity," he said.

Waste watchdog the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union called on Mr Luxon to pay back the tuition costs.

Mr Luxon's right-leaning coalition of the National, ACT and NZ First parties has already strained relations with many in Māoridom, particularly over plans to wind back te reo use as championed by the Labour government.

Public servants have been told to communicate in English while public bodies - such as Waka Kotahi for the New Zealand Transport Agency - must revert to using their English-language name first.

Detractors say the government is bashing a minority and inflaming a culture war while the government argues changes have confused non-te reo speakers.

Te reo use is on the rise in NZ but remains a second language.

Competent speakers have grown from six to eight per cent from 2016 to 2021, including 23 per cent of Maori, up from 17 per cent.

Assimilationist governments banned the language in schools for much of the 20th century, causing trauma for many Māori.

Some government members are hostile to te reo use, with Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters believing Aotearoa, the Māori term for NZ, is illegitimate.

In parliament last week, the 78-year-old declined to answer a question in te reo from Rawiri Waititi, the Māori Party co-leader who has mobilised thousands to protest the new government.

Mr Luxon insisted he supported the language and wanted others to learn too.

"It's a fantastic language," he said.

"I wish I had learned as a younger person ... I'm trying to learn.

"I've found it actually very hard."

Mr Luxon had a chequered record with the Indigenous language in his former role as Air New Zealand's chief executive.

Under his leadership, stewards began using te reo greetings such as "kia ora" for hello and "ma te wa" for see you soon.

In September 2019, the airline sought to trademark "kia ora" - the name of its in-flight magazine.

After consultation with Māori leaders, and a local and international backlash, Air New Zealand abandoned the bid a week later.

[cathkaesque]

if you could travel back in time, is there a specific time and place you'd want to go? assuming you'd instantly know the local language and not bring back a plague

I have a tonne of thoughts about this actually. I would go back to the 1984 miners strike, armed with all the knowledge and government documents that my bf has uncovered during his research. We both fantasise often about going back in time to fix the mistakes that happened during the 80s, in order to prevent the destruction of the world as ongoing today.

The 1984 miners' strike is one of the fundamental world turning points - it's when the ideas of resources should be used for need, rather than profit, versus the idea that resources exist to make money and should be thrown away if they don't, are explicitly tested and the latter wins out. The working class movement never recovers and the social bases of its existence are destroyed. Capital taken out of national industries is exported abroad, and Britain's economy becomes a consumerist. Fundamentally, it's this approach that has destroyed the world.

The strike was utterly winnable - Thatcher takes on each individual group of combative workers one by one (first inner city riots in 1979-80, then the steel workers in 1980, then rail workers in 1982, the miners in 1984, local government in 1985, print workers in 1986, dock workers in 1989). If all of these groups had taken unified action at once then the government would have folded - they say so themselves in their internal discussions. There were multiple opportunities for joint action - there is an attempted general strike in Wales that fails to get off the ground due to poor coordination.

The other thing as well is how close the Labour Party came to being led by Tony Benn - in the 1981 Deputy Leadership he was basically a handful of votes away from unseating right wing ballsack Dennis Healey (50.4% vs 49.6%). He could have won a leadership challenge against Foot, and definitely could have beaten Kinnock in the 1983 leadership election had his seat not been abolished in the election of that year. A Benn party would have backed the strikes, rather than tried to sabotage them like Kinnock's ilk did.

The other turning point is post strike, the transformation of the National Union of Mineworkers from a workplace union first and foremost to an organisation that represented the whole coalfield community. Women in the pit communities built an alternative welfare system in the form of Women Against Pit Closures, which provided communities with essentials as well as manning picket lines. There was a motion at NUM conference in 1985 to give WAPC branches affiliate membership, but this was defeated largely for entirely misogynistic reasons. If this had succeeded, and the NUM had invested in developing and supporting these branches rather than , they could have retained some of their political organisation post pit closure. Furthermore, this would then have given other community based movements such as the Anti-Poll Tax Leagues a model for something that could exist after the strike.

This transition, from workplace to community union, was achieved in Bolivia which went through a very similar process - the tin miners were the vanguard of the workers' movement there, and had won the nationalisation of their mines, which were all closed when the price of tin dropped in 1984. The miners kept their political traditions alive as they moved into informal work in El Alto and coca growing in Chapare, and were the base of the CSUTCB peasants union, the COR-El Alto informal workers' union, and the FEJUVE community union. These organisations were the political foundation for Evo Morales' transformation of that country. I really do feel strongly that the same could have happened in the UK - they could have provided an anchor to left wing challenges that broke through in the 2000s (Ken Livingstone's mayorship of London, George Galloway's Respect Party) which failed due to the terrible politics of the people that led them.

However, this would require me to have established myself in advance of the strike - so I would probably go back to 1979, or potentially earlier to 1968 to properly embed myself in the culture.

[eaglesnick]

The Truth, The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth

Question

What do the following political leaders have in common?

David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, and Keir Starmer.

Answer

They all made pledges they did not keep.

Cameron broke several pledges, not least his promise not to raise VAT. “We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT” he told Jeremy Paxman during an interview about his first budget.  VAT was then raised from 17.5% to 20% despite Cameron’s pledge to the contrary.

Nick Clegg pledged not to raise university tuition fees. “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”  This pledge was abandoned immediately Nick Clegg became Deputy Prime Minister under the Tory/Lib/Dem coalition government.

Boris Johnson, as we all now know, is  incapable of telling the truth about anything if he sees a personal advantage in lying to us.

Rishi Sunak promised, on the steps of No 10 Downing Street, "This government will have integrity, professionalism, and accountability at every level. Trust is earned and I will trust yours.”  Since then Sunak has been accused of covering up ministers actions during the pandemic, and rather than being "accountable at every level” is being taken to court to force him to hand over information vital to the Covid Enquiry.

Keir Starmer made ten pledges during his bid for the Labour Party leadership. Having won that contest he has now abandoned nearly every one of those promises. Such is the disillusionment of Labour members that membership is haemorrhaging by the thousands. The BBC reported a loss of 90.000 members by August 2022.

Under Starmer’s leadership, the Labour Party no longer offers an alternative to the broken policies of the Tories. Just like Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson, David Cameron and Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer is prepared to promise ANYTHING to gain power, but once elected go back on his word.

This country deserves so much better from our political leaders.

[yhwhrulz]

John Prescott: former deputy PM and New Labour stalwart – video obituary | John Prescott | The Guardian

[ejesgistnews]

Abuja, Nigeria – The Court of Appeal in Abuja has disqualified Olusola Ebiseni, the Labour Party (LP) candidate for the upcoming Ondo State governorship election, in a significant legal twist ahead of the November 16 polls. Appeal Court Overturns High Court Ruling, Disqualifies Ebiseni The decision, announced on Wednesday, November 13, was made by a three-member panel of justices, with Justice Adebukola Banjoko delivering the unanimous verdict. This ruling overturns a prior decision by the Federal High Court, which had initially upheld Ebiseni’s candidacy as the LP’s standard-bearer. Ebiseni, who also serves as the Secretary-General of the pan-Yoruba sociopolitical group, Afenifere, has faced an ongoing dispute over his nomination, challenged by unionist Ayodele Olorunfemi. Labour Party Faction Celebrates Appeal Court Decision In a swift reaction, Olabisi Adu Okunniyi, the factional deputy governorship candidate for the Labour Party in Ondo State, praised the appellate court’s judgment. In a statement issued by her media office, Okunniyi called the ruling a "victory for the rule of law" and extended an invitation for political alliances in Ondo State. "We are open to any ideological electoral coalition that will liberate Ondo State from those who exploit its common resources," Okunniyi stated. Olorunfemi Declared LP Candidate Following Party Primaries The Labour Party’s internal conflict has been brewing since June, when the party held its primaries in Akure. A statement from the party's National Publicity Secretary, Obiora Ifoh, previously declared Ayodele Olorunfemi as the legitimate flagbearer, distancing the party leadership from Ebiseni’s claim. Peter Obi’s Endorsement of Ebiseni Now in Question Before the appeal court’s decision, Peter Obi, the LP presidential candidate in the 2023 general election, had endorsed Ebiseni, citing his vision for equitable development in Ondo State. Obi highlighted Ebiseni’s commitment to justice and fairness, adding that his leadership could bring much-needed progress to the state. What’s Next for the Labour Party in Ondo State? With the appeal court’s ruling, the Labour Party’s internal dynamics may shift dramatically, as Olorunfemi is now expected to lead the party’s charge in the upcoming election. Political observers will be keenly watching how this legal battle affects voter sentiment and the overall strategy of the Labour Party in the days leading up to the polls. Stay updated with the latest developments on the Ondo State governorship election as the story unfolds.

[theoptimisticpatriot]

Will the Council of Nations and Regions make the difference devolution needs?

First published on LabourList

Today Keir Starmer will chair the first meeting of the Council of Nations and Regions (CNR). It’s an innovation with an important message about Labour working to deliver across the UK.  But how much difference will it make to the way the United Kingdom and its nations are run?   The Council has its origins in Gordon Brown’s report on the future of the UK which  recommended ‘a new and powerful institution to drive co-operation between all its governments – a Council of the Nations and Regions.’ I was critical of Brown for not being radical enough but I also warned that  ‘Labour in government is usually less radical than in opposition’. That’s certainly the case with the new Council.

Brown wanted the Council of Nations and Regions based in statute, with an independent secretariat. It was to be part of a series of constitutional changes, including stronger legal protection for the devolved parliaments, the replacement of the Lords with a union-wide second chamber, a new Council of England to represent English mayors and local government, and a new body to bring together the First Ministers with the UK Prime Minister.  Today’s Council was reportedly set up without even informing the Scottish government and will, it seems, be run out of Whitehall’s Cabinet Office by the recently demoted Sue Gray.  While Brown’s Lords reform did raise some serious difficulties, the King’s Speech contained no proposals to give the CNR legal status and the rest of Brown’s proposals have, for now at least, disappeared. 

Far from being at the heart of a refreshed four nation union in which deeper devolution goes alongside stronger cooperation, today’s CNR is an odd-looking body. Chaired by the UK Prime Minister, it brings together the First Ministers of Scotland ,Wales and Northern Ireland (and NI’s Deputy First Minister) with England’s twelve directly elected mayors. Yet First Ministers and English Mayors have vastly different powers and sources of authority. The First Ministers are chosen through national parliamentary elections and are responsible for nearly all domestic policy in the devolved nations. Their powers are devolved by statute, and they are responsible for huge budgets (£60bn in the case of Scotland). Even the most powerful of England’s mayors has a budget smaller than some large English councils and has few powers devolved by right. Indeed, the total spending power devolved to all England’s mayors at the end of the last financial year was just £2.6bn.  

Tony Blair did not endear himself to Welsh Labour when he likened the newly established Welsh Assembly to a parish council.  It remains to be seen how keen the elected leaders of the devolved administrations will be at being lumped together with relatively minor players in the governance of England. The SNP are already asking why Scotland’s major cities are not included. National leaders will surely want a stronger and more focussed collaboration with the UK government. The UK government will need it too: Labour’s missions are UK wide, but they can’t be run from London. They won’t be delivered without the whole-hearted engagement of the devolved nations and their elected leaderships.

England’s mayors have welcomed their seat at the table. The last Government forced directly mayors on any worthwhile devolution ‘deal’ but it never wanted to give them a collective voice. Keir Starmer has now done that. But there may be trouble ahead. Much of England’s local government south of the Severn-Wash line – covering many newly elected Labour MPs – has so far rejected the idea of mayors. This makes the mayoral map decidedly skewed. As important, not even the most advanced Mayoral Combined Authorities have anything like the powers and resources needed to achieve growth, build homes and play their part in the other missions. The devolution ambition needs to be stepped up across England, not scaled back, and with robust but flexible  governance arrangements. But there are worrying reports that the Treasury is now trying to clawback control over even the limited ‘single pot’ trailblazer devolution deals put forward by Michael Gove. Labour needs to resist the Treasury insistence on controlling the purse strings that has undermined every devolution initiative since the 1990s. It seems an invitation to the CNR has not stopped some mayoral teams briefing against the government. There needs to be a better way of shaping devolution policy.

The danger is that the CNR satisfies no one: neither the vehicle for  inter-governmental cooperation across the UK, nor the place where English devolution gets thrashed out. The good news is that Labour can make more radical change. For the first time since 2005 Labour has a majority in all three British nations, making it easier to push through some of the constitutional protections for UK devolution Gordon Brown envisaged. The new English Devolution Bill could devolve powers and resources to local and combined authorities across England by right, not just by permission of the centre. It could create a statutory body for devolved English local government to work with the UK government to agree policy.

The creation of the CNR carries a message that the Labour government wants to work across the United Kingdom to achieve its missions. But, on its own at least, it’s not enough to deliver success.

John Denham

Labour Communities Secretary 2009-10

Director Centre for English Identity and Politics at Southampton University.

[novumtimes]

Thousands take part in pro-Palestinian march in central London

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators have marched through central London, with protesters calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the escalating conflict in the Middle East. Tens of thousands walked from Russell Square to Whitehall, where speeches took place outside Downing Street. The event was organised by groups including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, with people travelling from around the country to take part. Seventeen people were arrested, the Metropolitan Police said. The largely peaceful protest comes one year after the 7 October attacks in Israel. The Metropolitan Police said it was hard to accurately estimate turnout but the protest “appears to be greater than other recent protests”. The crowd stretched from Downing Street to Trafalgar Square while speakers, including ex-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, were addressing demonstrators. People could be seen carrying Palestinian flags and placards with messages such as “ceasefire now” and “hands off Lebanon”, and chanting “stop the bombing now”. A counter-protest also took place, with police forming a cordon between the two marches. But a small group broke away from the pro-Palestinian protest and were stopped trying to approach the counter-protest at Aldwych. Three people were arrested after officers intervened. Conditions were imposed to move the counter-protest group back to Trafalgar Square as it got “too close to the main march and well away from the agreed area”, police said. Of the 17 arrests, police said three people had been arrested for assaulting an emergency worker, three for assault, eight for public order offences (four racially aggravated), one for a breach of Public Order Act conditions and two for supporting a proscribed organisation. The force said one of those arrested for supporting a proscribed organisation was seen wearing what appeared to be a parachute. It added it was aware of social media posts showing people holding placards with messages of support for Hezbollah – proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government and others – and it was working to find those involved. Separately, pro-Palestinian supporters walked through the centre of Edinburgh during a silent march on Saturday afternoon. Organisers called for a ceasefire and for the UK and Scottish governments to impose sanctions on Israel. On Sunday, a memorial event will take place in Hyde Park organised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and other groups. The war began when Hamas gunmen attacked Israel on 7 October last year, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 others as hostages. Israel responded with a military campaign in Gaza that has now killed at least 41,825 people, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. Source link via The Novum Times

[unitedventurez]

New Scottish Tory Leader Russell Findlay Vows to Transform Party

Russell Findlay has been elected as the new leader of the Scottish Conservatives, pledging to revitalize the party and "win back public trust." The former journalist triumphed over Murdo Fraser and Meghan Gallacher in a ballot of party members following Douglas Ross's resignation during the general election campaign.

Findlay, who has represented the West of Scotland as an MSP since 2021 and served as the party's justice spokesman, expressed his commitment to addressing the concerns of voters who feel alienated by the "fringe obsessions" of the Scottish Parliament. He emphasized the need for unity within the party after a "bruising" campaign that saw allegations of interference from some candidates.

Out of 6,941 eligible party members, 4,155 voted, resulting in a turnout of 60%. Findlay garnered 2,565 votes, while Fraser received 1,187 and Gallacher 403.

"We must start the hard work now to win back public trust," Findlay stated. "I want to be a voice for the decent, mainstream values of hard work and self-reliance."

As the new leader prepares for a busy schedule—including a speech at the 25th anniversary of devolution and engagements at the Conservative Party conference—he aims to reshape the party's image and approach.

Findlay’s opponents congratulated him on social media, with Fraser calling for unity and collaboration. However, criticism came from SNP MSP Kevin Stewart, who accused Findlay of lacking a genuine commitment to Scotland's interests, suggesting that the party remains divided.

Scottish Labour’s deputy leader, Dame Jackie Baillie, pointed out that simply changing leaders wouldn’t suffice to halt the party’s decline, which has seen the Conservatives struggling in recent elections.

The leadership change follows Douglas Ross’s controversial decision to step down as leader while campaigning for a Westminster seat, further fueling tensions within the party as it seeks to recover from its historically low voter support.

[adj4mp]

Rishi Sunak

Leader of the opposition is a job that like PM and deputy prime minister has no real job requirements other than a tentative support of the largest minority of MPs. It helps to have the confidence of those MPs and a certain level of competence to provide an effective and robust eyes of scrutiny to the government.

I do not believe that Sunak has the confidence and his showing at PMQ's since the election have left a lot to be desired with regards to posing a genuine challenge to the labour party's agenda. I think the reasons for this are threefold.

Firstly the Labour party just presented themselves as having a substantial mandate to govern, not an insurmountable one but certainly a large enough one to make any of the 5PMs that preceded Starmer jealous. An Election defeat as striking as that in 2024 would make nearly any politician rethink their position and shake their confidence and eat humble pie.

Secondly is the support that Sunak is used to, with the number of MPs cheering and supporting him at least in gross numbers reducing from more than half to one in 5, Sunak will be contending with a lack of expertise that largely agrees with him from within the chamber as well as a severe reduction in the amount of staff support.

And Third but by no means least Sunak's position as leader of the Conservative party is one that has it's expiration date almost set in stone, my understanding is that he will not contest the next leadership election by putting his own name forward, either he's stepping down by choice or he's being forced out by other factions within the party neither of which are particularly tenable positions. If he feels he's only keeping the seat warm and has lost the will to fight he won't make a good Leader of the opposition anyway.

I hope that inspite of the loss of position his expertise remains highly respected within the shadow government, even if he's not the leader of the opposition for the whole of the current parliament Sunak's background in finance and his experiences as PM and Chancellor would make him a reasonable fit for the Shadow Chancellor position.

If the Conservative party elect a leader who will put country before party, one who will do more to stoke unity than pile on within the existing divides of both the conservative party and the wider they will not let pride and vindictiveness relegate Sunak into obscurity or make him feel like it's in his best interest to trigger a by-election for his constituency.

I don't like wasting talent and skills, even if I disagree with a politician I don't think sidelining them and there expertise is always the best option. Sunak has the potential to hold Reeves to account if he wanted to, to challenge spending and taxation policy and provide an equally viable path through the quagmire of treasury decisions. They might not always align with the agenda set by Starmer, Reeves and Raynor but it could provide a credible alternative to consider.

That is the largest job of being in opposition. Failure to scrutinize and examine legislation and its potential impacts allows a government carte blanche to enact decisions with wide ranging and potentially catastrophic impacts. This is also the role of the second chamber but they have far less power to curtail governmental overreach as the power of fatal and regret motions are limited by the parliament act, a rogue and super majority party if left unchallengdd could choose to enact almost any legislation it likes.

This will likely go live while the leadership contest is likely in full swing so what this means for the future of the shadow cabinet is anyone's guess. For now, I shall continue down the list of prominent members of the House of Commons in no particular order but I fully expect there to be a "corrections and amendments" post in the future

[mynewshq]

Ajaero’s police summon: Obi cautions FG as NUPENG puts oil workers on alert

Presidential candidate of Labour Party, LP, in the 2023 general elections, Peter Obi, yesterday expressed worry over the invitation of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, President, Joe Ajaero, by the Nigeria Police Force over allegations of criminal conspiracy, terrorism financing, treasonable felony, subversion and cybercrime. This came as the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers, NUPENG, also yesterday put all its members nationwide on red alert, ready for a strike should the Police arrest the NLC President. Recall that the Intelligence Response Team, IRT, an arm of the Nigerian Police Force, NPF, had on Monday, August 19, invited Ajaero, for questioning over allegations of criminal conspiracy, terrorism financing, treasonable felony, subversion and cybercrime. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, IRT, in a letter, said Ajaero should appear at the IRT office, Force Headquarters, on August 20, warning that he would be arrested if he failed to honour the invitation. The NLC had since, through its lawyer, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, written to the Inspector General of Police, IGP, explaining why the NLC President could not honour the August 20, date. Falana however, assured that Ajaero would honour the Police invitation on August 29 and requested that the Police furnish him with details and nature of the allegations. Reacting yesterday through X, Obi emphasised the sensitivity of the situation, given Ajaero’s critical role as the leader of the nation’s workforce. He said: “The anxiety generated by Nigeria Police’s invitation to the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, Mr. Joe Ajaero, for an interview should not be unexpected, given the critical position he holds as leader of the nation’s workforce. ”The NLC is an interlocutor of the Federal Government on various labour disputes and other national interest issues.” Obi urged that due process be observed, stressing that the allegations against Ajaero wereserious, wondering if the charges against him were in relation to his personal conduct or his responsibilities as NLC leader. Extreme caution must thus be exercised in the manner this issue is handled. It is not unexpected that government will try autocratic methods to view labour as a potential opposition force,” he said. The former governor further called on the authorities to adhere strictly to the rule of law and evidence-based procedures in handling the matter. NUPENG reactsMeanwhile, the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers, NUPENG, has put all its members nationwide on red alert, asking them to be ready for action should the Police arrest the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, Joe Ajaero. In a circular to all its branches and members, NUPENG’s General Secretary, Afolabi Olawale, the union stated: “The leadership of our great union finds the invasion of the national secretariat of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, by some security agencies and the recent allegations levelled against Comrade Joe Ajaero, the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress by the Nigeria Police Force very intriguing and deeply concerning. Read the full article

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"At the same time as Canada backed into World War II, which it planned as a war of limited liability, development of the Defence of Canada Regulations (DOCR) advanced inexorably. In March, 1938, Cabinet authorized the creation of inter-departmental committees under the general supervision of the Department of National Defence to deal with censorship, defence co-ordination, and ship, aircraft and air raid precautions. Two other committees were also struck, one under the leadership of Secretary of State to deal with policy towards enemy aliens and their property, and a second, chaired by the deputy minister of Justice, to design emergency legislation that would be necessary in the event of war or insurrection. These committees were co-ordinated by the Department of National Defence, which had a mandate of producing a  Government War Book to deal with the prospect of world war with Japan and Germany.

The policies adopted by the government in the wake of this committee work resulted in general arrangements for the arrest and detention of suspect enemy aliens,  arrangements that were applied, as well, to Canadian communists. The RCMP was to have wide discretionary powers of arrest and detainment. A director of Internment Operations, appointed by the minister of National Defence, reported to the Secretary of State, and was to oversee the operation of internment camps. RCMP or local police officials would administer the registration of enemy aliens, and determine who were to be interned, while an appellate tribunal would hear appeals from the internees.

The DOCR provided the RCMP with considerable latitude about whom it could arrest and detain. Regulations 21 of the DOCR allowed the minister of Justice, upon advice of the police, to arrest and intern people deemed dangerous to the nation’s security. The RCMP had successfully argued within the federal administration that:

…There is a serious danger that attempts to impede the war effort of the nation might be made by persons actuated not by sympathy with the enemy but by ‘international’ affiliations or by disinterested opposition to war… This power of internment, therefore, cannot safely be limited to persons of hostile origin or associations, as in the last war, or even to persons of hostile sympathies.

In actual fact, ‘international affiliations’, and those  who expressed ‘disinterested opposition to war’ meant communists and their sympathizers.

These broad powers of arrest and detention were contested by some public servants  who, indeed, eventually did effect changes that limited these arbitrary powers. When these public servants seriously challenged the relevance of the communists’ internment, they were able to end military detention procedures. On the other hand, however, some war developments also had the opposite effect of tightening the legal screws on the communists, such as the fall of France, when organizations were made illegal, including the Communist Party and associated, ethnic organizations.

The Substance of the DOCR The RCMP and the Defence Department won the battle within the federal administration against certain elements of the Prime Minister’s Office, External Affairs, Justice and even Finance, who were offended by the illiberal, arbitrary detention  provisions of the DOCR.

For the RCMP, the worst danger to Canada during World War II came from the possible subversion, sabotage, and agitation to labour peace that might be wrought by those on the left, despite the existence of healthy, fascist movements in Canada which, it might reasonably be surmised, could undermine Canada’s war effort against the fascist countries. The head of the RCMP’s intelligence section, Charles Rivett-Carnac, justified this position on the part of the federal police by arguing that, unlike communism, the fascist countries left in place a semblance of capitalism. Furthermore, fascism was the reaction of the middle classes to the communist peril. Thus, Rivett-Carnac analyzed fascism in a way similar to how Trotsky had, even though it is doubtful that the RCMP were aware of their similarity of their analysis to that of Trotsky, the advocate of permanent revolution. The irony here is too rich to be ignored: were the RCMP Trotskyites?

Under the DOCR, the Communist Party of Canada and its associated organizations remained illegal for the duration of World War II. Canada was the only allied power to maintain such a policy. In the U.S. and Great Britain, communism remained legal throughout the war. In fact, at times, the Canadian government was admonished by representatives of allied countries about Canadian policy. The policy continued even though the U.S.S.R. became our ally, and even though the main, indigenous resistance in German-occupied countries to the Nazis came from communists, as in Greece, Yugoslavia, France, Norway, and even in Italy, after Mussolini’s fall. Other than Canada, the only other countries who outlawed communism during World War II were those of the German-Italian-Japanese Axis, or those occupied by Axis powers.

Obviously, repression of the Communist Party of Canada reflected a conscious policy of the Canadian state that existed not by war necessities, but in spite of them. The raison  d’être of the repression, in fact, was based upon larger considerations of the Canadian  state and its ruling classes.

...

The War Measures Act of 1914 provided the legal basis for the DOCR. The World War I law had authorized the federal government to undertake

such acts and things, and [to] make from time to time such orders and regulations as [it] may, by reason of the existence of real or apprehended invasion or insurrection, deem necessary or  advisable for the security, defence, peace, order, and welfare of Canada.

The public servants preparing the Government War Book judged that this provided sufficient legal precedent for the DOCR. As well, public servants referred to the examples of measures adopted in Great Britain.

Examples of measures authorized by the War Measures Act included censorship and control of publications, writings, maps, photographs, plans, communications and means of communications; powers to arrest, detain, exclude, and deport people; and the use and control of property. Cabinet alone would determine if  there was a state of war or insurrection, as well as the duration of this state. 

The DOCR were adopted a week before Canada’s declaration of war against Germany on September 10, 1939. The regulations were sweeping. As just one example, the government could  name any business or mine as essential for supplying the war effort. It then was illegal to loiter around such a business, a regulation which was initially interpreted in Ontario courts to mean that strike pickets outside the business were illegal. Owing to protests from organized labour, this regulation was amended so as to exclude from the loitering provisions workers involved in a legal strike.

The most relevant articles with respect to the imprisonment and internment of communists were regulations 21, 22, and 39. Regulation 21 permitted the government to intern whomsoever might present a danger to the state or the public, or who might threaten the prosecution of the war. Regulation 22 authorized the creation of advisory committees to hear appeals from internees about the reasons for their internment, and to advise the minister of Justice to release internees or continue internment. Nevertheless, the Minister of Justice could then accept or ignore their advice. Regulation 39 prohibited anyone to behave in such a manner, or to make statements:

intended or likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty, or to interfere with the success of His Majesty’s forces… to prejudice the recruiting, training, discipline, or administration of any of His Majesty’s forces… to be prejudicial to the safety of the state, or the efficient prosecution of the war.

Regulation 39A, adopted in the fall of 1939 after the initial promulgation of the DOCR, prohibited printing, publication, distribution, and even possession of documents that contravened Regulation 39.

Regulation 39C, adopted on June 6, 1940, rendered illegal three German and six Italian, pro-fascist organizations; two organizations that were overtly fascist, the National Unity Party, led by Adrien Arcand, and the Canadian Union of Fascists; and eleven communist or sympathizing organizations. Additions were also made to this list.

One year later, the list of prohibited organizations was expanded to include the pro-communist Finnish Society of Canada, five left-wing publishing houses, and the religious group, Jehovah’s Witnesses, to make a total of thirty organizations in which membership alone was an illegal act, an extraordinary breach of British justice. 

With respect to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, it took years to establish that the Witnesses had a legal right to preach door-to-door in Canada. Witnesses provided a reliable scapegoat for the right in Quebec, almost till the end of Duplessis’ rule during the late 1950s. Even today, the mere mention of this religion engenders irrational hostility among some. Above all, prohibition of the Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly had nothing to do with the successful prosecution of World War II. It was a perfect example of how governments can misuse arbitrary detention to exclude virtually any activity that political expedience might indicate. 

The case of the banned organization, Technocracy Inc., is not as sad. In fact, it’s quite bizarre, even farcical, but also most revealing. The RCMP’s attention was drawn to this  group when the police discovered their publication, Eastern Technocrat, in November, 1939. Technocracy Inc. was an American group of technophiles who wanted to spread the use of engineering, and the development of an economy based upon massive consumption of energy. If these guys were indeed responsible for the nature of our current economy, they certainly were influential and successful. Technocracy Inc.’s motto was: “Be an engineer — a social engineer — a technocrat”. Engineering was promoted as providing solutions to all manner of social or economic problem. Once again, if these guys were responsible for the prevalence of social engineering in contemporary society, then they certainly were effective.

The group may have had some link to Social Credit, a legitimate though certainly not left-wing mode of thought popular  in the 1930s and 1940s. Social Crediters were known for their ‘funny-money’ ideas, and there may have been some links with certain personalities in Social Credit. The Technocracy case was a good example of the RCMP acting as ‘dumb cops’, but what of the Justice Department lawyers and the minister of Justice who approved the prohibition? The case reveals much about the intellectual level and the paranoia of the federal police, and those who supervised them.

...

The DOCR were repressive measures: censorship of the press; arrest and detention without just cause or explanation of motive; prohibition of political and religious expression; outlawing organizations, making people guilty by association. It is hardly surprising that these clear violations of legal principles would be accompanied by methods of administration that were also repressive.

Basic legal protections were set aside in the application of the DOCR. It usually was impossible to learn the precise reasons for internment. The stock phrase used to explain internment under Regulation 21  referred to 39C; it was “representations have been made to the effect that you are a member of the Communist Party of Canada, a subversive organization, and are, therefore, disloyal to Canada”. An Ontario judge, in the case of internee Pat Sullivan, ruled that habeas corpus, by which a person detaining someone must explain without delay the reasons for the detentions to the detainee and to a judge, was held to be of no effect. The curious reason given was that the final decision upon the detention accrued to the minister of Justice, and not to the person doing the actual detaining.

Regulation 22 authorized advisory committees to serve as appeal mechanisms for internees in response to complaints from lawyers and Parliamentarians. Nevertheless, there were too few of these committees, who met too infrequently. Their work was done in secret. The RCMP would reveal the evidence supporting internment to presiding judges, but not to internees nor their lawyers. The hearings deteriorated to discussions of the politics of the internees, or to searching for information about the internees’ associates.

Finally, even were the committees to rule in favour of the release of the internee, the minister of Justice was not required to accept the recommendation, nor explain his reasons. Regulation 39C, making organizations illegal contrary to the principle that association cannot be a reason for guilt, meant that the burden of proof fell to the internees rather than the state. For example, that internees were members of the Party during 1936, 1937, or 1938, when the Party was indeed legal meant nothing; nor did claims to the effect that the internees were not now, nor had ever been a member of the Party.

Regulations 39C and 21 were read together; for instance, using article 21, police might say that the internee presented a security danger. When asked how, they would resort to 39C, saying he or she was a member of the Party, with no specific actions given. Charging a person with violations against regulation 39 and 39A often proved to be difficult cases to prosecute in regular courts, since serious evidence had to be presented about a person’s actions. Many charges against communists using Regulation 39 and 39A failed, especially before juries.

No matter… in some cases, a person not proven guilty of violating Regulations 39 or 39A would simply be charged using Regulations 21 and 39C, which required no trial nor formal charges. In several cases, persons found not guilty according to Regulation 39 or 39A were arrested by the RCMP immediately after exiting the courthouse after the court’s decision, then interned. Finally, organizations whose properties had been seized using 39C had no option for regaining property, unless there would have been a specific Cabinet order removing the organization from the list of banned organizations. Once on that list, in fact, banned organizations were only once again made legal after the war, by which time, property  became even more difficult to regain."

- Michael Martin, The Red Patch: Political Imprisonment in Hull, Quebec during World War 2. Self-published, 2007. p. 63-74.

[llewelynpritch]

BBC Conservative Party Bias Serious Lack Of Impartiality - ‘The available evidence indicates the BBC has been giving significantly more airtime and more favourable coverage to the Conservative Party and its leadership contest compared to the Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer in its morning and other news broadcasts.’ #CorruptToryGovernment #Elections #Electioneering #AI #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard 30 April 2024

Perplexity: ‘Based on the search results provided, the BBC does not appear to be giving equal airtime to the Labour Party in its morning broadcasts compared to the Conservative Party:

The Ofcom report found that the Conservative leadership contest was the most prominent specific topic across BBC news outlets, accounting for up to 47.2% of airtime on Newsnight and around 20% on other major BBC TV news programs.1

In contrast, the report found that health, education and crime topics only accounted for 7.5% of BBC airtime 1

The YouGov survey data suggests the public perceives the BBC as being more favourable towards the Conservatives and the right compared to Labour and the left. 5

So in summary, the available evidence indicates the BBC has been giving significantly more airtime and more favourable coverage to the Conservative Party and its leadership contest compared to the Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer in its morning and other news broadcasts. 1 4 5’

BBC Conservative Party Bias Serious Lack Of Impartiality ‘The available evidence indicates the BBC has been giving significantly more airtime and more favourable coverage to the Conservative Party and its leadership contest compared to the Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer in its morning and other news broadcasts.’ #BBC #CorruptToryGovernment #Electioneering #AI #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard  30 April 2024

Samir Shah Non-Executive Chairman

Damon Buffini Deputy Chair; Chair, BBC Commercial Board

Consisting of four executive members:

i) Tim Davie - Director-General and Editor-in-Chief, who also chairs the

Executive Committee. 1

ii) Charlotte Moore, Chief Content Officer. 1

iii) Leigh Tavaziva, Chief Operating Officer. 1

iv) Deborah Turness - CEO, BBC News and Current Affairs. 1

Four of the non-executive members are specifically appointed as members for each of the nations of the UK:

i) Robbie Gibb, Member for England

iia) Dame Elan Closs Stephens DBE, ‘Former Acting Chair; Former Member for Wales’

iib) Rhodri Talfan Davies, Director of Nations and sits on the BBC’s Executive Committee

iii) Muriel Gray, Member for Scotland

iv) Michael Smyth, Member for Northern Ireland

The Chairman and the non-executive members for the nations are appointed by HM The King on the recommendation of Ministers while the other members of the Board are appointed by the BBC through the Board’s Nominations Committee.’

Source: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard

Perplexity

‘Member ID of the BBC Executive Committee, which is responsible for the day-to-day management and operations of the BBC who have likely or potential vulnerabilities to Tory Government interference 1 2 3 5’:

Tim Davie, Director-General and Editor-in-Chief

Appointed: 1 September 2020

‘there is evidence that Tim Davie, the current Director-General and Editor-in-Chief of the BBC, has had past political affiliations with the Conservative Party:

Involvement with the Conservative Party in the 1990s:

Davie "stood as a councillor for The Conservative Party in Hammersmith in 1993 and 1994." 1

He was also "deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party in the 1990s." 1

Connections to Conservative Politicians:

Davie "remains good friends with the Tory peer Stephen Greenhalgh, who was until last year a minister in Johnson's government, and who celebrated Davie's appointment in a tweet in 2020." 2 3

Kerris Bright, Chief Customer Officer

"previously stood as a councillor for The Conservative Party in Hammersmith in 1993 and 1994."4 This suggests she had some past involvement with the Conservative Party, though the extent and nature of her political activities are not elaborated upon.’

Potential Ideological Alignment:

Kerris Bright's background in marketing and customer-focused roles at companies like Virgin Media and British Airways may align, to some degree, with the Conservative Party's generally pro-business and free market-oriented policies.’

Alan Dickson - Chief Financial Officer

Registered Donation to the Conservative Party:

According to the Register of Members' Financial Interests, Alan Dickson made a registered donation to the Conservative Party in the past. 3

The register states that the "Amount of donation: £5,000" and the "Address of donor: private". 3

Leigh Tavaziva, Chief Operating Officer

Joined the BBC as Group Chief Operating Officer in February 2021. 1

’Former Conservative Candidate: According to the transcript from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee hearing, it was "pointed out that you are a former Conservative candidate". 2

Tom Fussell, CEO, BBC Studios

Potential Ideological Alignment:

As the CEO of BBC Studios, a commercial subsidiary of the BBC, Tom Fussell's focus on the financial and business aspects of the organisation may align, to some degree, with the Conservative Party's generally pro-business policies.

Alice Macandrew, Group Corporate Affairs Director

‘Alice Macandrew previously worked as an adviser to James Murdoch, who had close ties to the Conservative Party. 4 This represents her past, indirect connection to the party through her professional association.’

Charlotte Moore, Chief Content Officer

First joined the BBC in 2006 as a Commissioning Executive, and over the years took on increasingly senior roles within the organisation, culminating in her appointment as Chief Content Officer in September 2020.

‘Criticism of Conservative Government Policies:

In 2016, when Charlotte Moore was the Controller of BBC One, she publicly defended the BBC's programming against criticism from the then-Conservative Culture Secretary, John Whittingdale.3 This suggests a potential tension or disagreement between Moore and the Conservative government's views on the BBC's content.’

Uzair Qadeer, Chief People Officer

The search results do not contain any information about Uzair Qadeer having any direct, indirect, past, or present connections to the Conservative Party or any other political party. 1 2 3 4 5

Gautam Rangarajan, Group Director of Strategy and Performance

Potential Ideological Alignment:

Given Rangarajan's senior position at the BBC, overseeing strategy and performance, his work may align to some degree with the Conservative Party's views on the role and operations of the public broadcaster. However, the search results do not provide any explicit evidence of him actively supporting or promoting Conservative Party policies or agendas.

Rhodri Talfan Davies, Director, Nations

Potential Ideological Alignment:

As the Director of Nations at the BBC, Rhodri Talfan Davies may have some indirect connections or alignment with the Conservative Party's views on the role and operations of the public broadcaster, particularly in relation to serving local and regional audiences. However, the search results do not provide any explicit evidence of him actively supporting or promoting Conservative Party policies or agendas.

Deborah Turness, CEO, BBC News and Current Affairs

Joined the BBC for the first time in September 2022 when she was appointed as the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs.

‘The indirect connections between Deborah Turness and the Conservative Party seem to be limited to her past criticism of the party as a journalist, her testimony before a parliamentary committee, and her current leadership role at the BBC, which could potentially influence the corporation's relationship with the governing party. However, the search results do not contain any direct evidence of Turness having formal political affiliations or connections with the Conservatives.’

Ref. Current members of the BBC Executive Board:

‘Significance of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's serious reservations about Dr. Samir Shah's appointment as BBC chair:

Doubts about his Willingness to Challenge BBC Leadership: The committee expressed "serious reservations" about Dr. Shah's "willingness to offer his opinions and insight on some of the most fundamental issues facing the corporation, and his ability to provide the robust challenge that the BBC leadership requires at this time." 1 2 4 5 They felt he did not demonstrate the necessary "strength and character" to hold the BBC's executive leadership accountable. 2 4

Concerns over his Evasiveness on Key Issues: The committee was "disappointed that Dr Shah was not willing to express a view on fundamental principles, such as board level interference in the BBC and other bodies and on political impartiality." 1 2 4 5 When asked about allegations of interference by a BBC board member, Dr. Shah was evasive and said he would need to wait until he was in post to comment. 2 4

Doubts about his Ability to Protect BBC's Independence: As BBC chair, Dr. Shah would be responsible for "upholding and protecting the BBC's independence and ensuring the BBC fulfils its mission to inform, educate and entertain." 1 5 The committee's reservations about his willingness to challenge the leadership and address fundamental issues raised concerns about his ability to effectively carry out this role.

Potential Impact on BBC's Future: The BBC is facing significant challenges, including funding cuts and political pressure. 3 The committee's doubts about Dr. Shah's suitability for the role at this "challenging time for the BBC"3 suggest they are concerned about his ability to navigate these issues and protect the corporation's integrity and independence.

In summary, the select committee's reservations highlight significant doubts about Dr. Shah's readiness and willingness to provide the robust, independent oversight required of the BBC chair, which is a crucial role in safeguarding the BBC's future and its ability to fulfil its public service mission. 1 2 4 5’

DeepAI:

‘The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's serious reservations about Dr. Samir Shah's appointment as BBC chairman carry significant weight due to the important role of the BBC in the media landscape and the need for transparent and effective governance:

1. Validity:

The reservations raised by the Select Committee may be considered valid if they are grounded in legitimate concerns about Dr. Shah's qualifications, experience, or potential conflicts of interest.

Valid reservations could indicate that there are genuine issues that need to be addressed regarding Dr. Shah's suitability for the role.

The Committee's scrutiny helps ensure that the selection process for key leadership positions like the BBC chairman is fair, transparent, and based on merit.

Valid concerns highlight the importance of selecting individuals with the skills and capabilities necessary to lead a complex and influential organisation like the BBC.

2. Reliability:

The reliability of the Select Committee's reservations depends on the thoroughness and fairness of their assessment of Dr. Shah's appointment.

A reliable evaluation takes into account all relevant factors and is based on objective criteria rather than personal biases or unrelated considerations.

The Select Committee's role in scrutinising public appointments is a key aspect of its function in upholding the principles of good governance and accountability.

Reliable reservations indicate that the Committee is fulfilling its oversight responsibilities effectively and working to ensure the integrity of the BBC's leadership structure.

Overall, the valid and reliable significance of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's reservations about Dr. Samir Shah's appointment as BBC chairman lies in their potential to safeguard the BBC's governance processes, uphold standards of transparency and meritocracy and promote public trust in the organisation's leadership.

By raising and addressing these reservations, the Committee contributes to maintaining the BBC's credibility and effectiveness in fulfilling its public service remit.’

‘Possible vulnerabilities to government interference within the BBC Executive Committee could stem from individuals with close political affiliations, personal relationships, or previous government roles.

These vulnerabilities could compromise the BBC's independence and impartiality. Here are some examples:

Trust: If a member of the Executive Committee has a history of close personal or professional relationships with government officials, there may be concerns about their ability to act independently. For example, if a member has recently worked for a political party or has strong ties to a specific government figure, their decisions and actions within the BBC may be viewed as potentially biased.

Political Affiliations: Executive Committee members with overt political affiliations or biases may be more susceptible to government interference. For instance, if a member has publicly supported a particular political party, there could be concerns that their decisions at the BBC might align with that party's interests rather than with the impartiality expected of the organisation.

Past Government Roles: Individuals within the Executive Committee who have previously held prominent positions within governmental bodies may be seen as more susceptible to government influence. For example, if a member has served as a government advisor or in a ministerial role, there may be worries about their loyalties and potential conflicts of interest when making decisions that affect the BBC.

Ideological Alignment: Executive Committee members whose personal beliefs or ideologies closely mirror those of a ruling government may face suspicion about their ability to act independently. If a member's values and viewpoints consistently align with a specific government's policies, their decision-making within the BBC could be questioned for potential bias.

It is crucial for the BBC Executive Committee to prioritise independence, impartiality, and the public interest in its decision-making processes.

Members who exhibit vulnerabilities to biased government interference may undermine the BBC's integrity and reputation as a trusted and impartial public broadcaster.

Transparent processes for appointment, accountability mechanisms, and a commitment to upholding the BBC's editorial independence are essential to mitigate these vulnerabilities and safeguard the BBC's role as a trusted source of information and entertainment for the public.’

Links

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bbc-conservative-bias-serious-lack-impartiality-llewelyn-pritchard-ma-jjxye/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSkyykETIPF7_5HmsFjZF-gQD9H9eKPG_PO_mhiR9WC72ovi8Klf0DntHvTEQ6wpNBhJu0Dxuakk8VQ/pub BBC Conservative Bias Serious Lack Of Impartiality - ‘The available evidence indicates the BBC has been giving significantly more airtime and more favourable coverage to the Conservative Party and its leadership contest compared to the Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer in its morning and other news broadcasts.’ #CorruptToryGovernment #Elections #Electioneering #AI #Perplexity Llewelyn Pritchard 30 April 2024

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/indian-strongmans-belly-power-rules-bbc-llewelyn-pritchard-ma-lvcve/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSMe8-WjX1OW7pN6Z6cXW6lq7xIA6CCmBv0ERe3h1eO--o3OLKuhAAFMv5kARFizBOvgYy8WLWYY-KP/pub 'Indian Strongman's Belly-Power Rules BBC' #DeepAIGeneratedImage #PoliticalSatire Fishy Rishi Tiddly Trudeau Artworks Llewelyn Pritchard 19 March 2024