Forum Topic

Performative government

Performative government can be defined as government in which ministers seek  plaudits from fellow ideologues rather than pursue goals determined by a dispassionate analysis of costs and benefits. There are several examples of performative policies followed by the current Labour administration.The most damaging example is probably the  push to net zero. This policy, which has won approval from environmentalists, has meant that British consumers and British industries  face some of the highest electricity costs  in Europe. The justification for the haste to achieve net zero is to create jobs and save the planet, but in fact it does neither. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the North Sea. As for saving the planet, the UK is responsible for around 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so any action in this country would has little effect. And the notion that the UK might be a beacon of light to other countries is laughable. In fact the less oil extracted from the North Sea, the more oil has to be imported from abroad, which simply exports the pollution.Another example is the Chagos deal, pursued by the government in slavish compliance  with a non- binding decision of jurists of the ICJ obsessed with anti-colonialism, even though the deal undermines the rights of the native Chagossians and jeopardises British national security.Yet another is the decision to impose VAT on independent schools. The supposed aim of this legislation is to create 6000 extra teachers for the state system. But its effect has been to force the closure of several schools, create extra demand on the state system, disrupt children’s education and place an unfair burden on parents. It’s obvious that the government is motivated by a wish to please the class warriors  in the party, determined to attack the privileges of the rich, even though many of of them earn far more than some of the parents who have to scrimp and save to pay for a decent school for their children.In short, Labour put ideology ahead of common sense.

Steven Rose ● 20d43 Comments

Mr Ainsworth'A massive Jewish diaspora existed centuries before the time of Christ. By the 1st century BCE, it is estimated that more Jews lived outside of Palestine than within it.'My God.What lengths you go to in order to delve into history on the pretext of educating the rest of us but in reality to give pseudo intellectual cover for your psychotic and obsessive antisemitism.And all this springs from your artificial intelligence !We might be lead to believe that this represents your original research had you not forgotten to edit out the paragraph headings !"Gamma minus Ainsworth. Rewrite this piece of homework to contain some original thought".Sad thing really though is that your obsession with the history of the Middle East is purely driven by your hatred of the Jews.

John Hawkes ● 14d

"The Jews did not ‘leave’ Palestine. They were expelled by the Romans." A massive Jewish diaspora existed centuries before the time of Christ. By the 1st century BCE, it is estimated that more Jews lived outside of Palestine than within it.Voluntary Migration and Trade:Egypt: A major hub where Jews settled as early as the 6th century BCE as mercenaries or traders. In Alexandria, Jews eventually made up roughly one-third of the city's population by 300 BCE.Hellenistic & Roman World: Following the conquests of Alexander the Great (332 BCE), Jews spread throughout the Mediterranean to cities like Antioch, Rome, and Cyrene.Scale of Dispersion: By the turn of the era, an estimated one million Jews lived in Egypt and another million in Babylonia. In Rome, Jews may have constituted up to 10% of the city's population. By the time of Christ, Jewish communities were firmly established from Italy to Iran, and as one ancient writer noted, "Every land is full of thee and every sea".This phrase is attributed to the Jewish author of the third book of the Sibylline Oracles (Oracula Sibyllina), a collection of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic texts. It is a line from the 2nd century BCE (pre-Roman times) addressing the Jewish "chosen people" during the Diaspora.It highlights the widespread dispersion of the Jewish population throughout the Mediterranean world during that era.You write:-"Nevertheless Jewish people have lived continuously in Jerusalem for over two thousand years, a fact which you conveniently ignore"I note that you always quote every possible fact pertaining to every argument in a completely dispassionate manner.Anyhow, Jewish people having been in Jerusalem for over 2,000 years means that Palestinians (descended from Jews who had converted as I mentioned) have been in Jerusalem for over 2,000 years.There is certainly one major break in the Jewish presence in Jerusalem:- Crusader Rule: Following a massacre of Jews by the (Christian) Crusaders in 1099 CE, the community was temporarily absent until Saladin (Muslim) recaptured the city in 1187.Following the October 1187 victory, Saladin's proclamation permitted Jews to live in Jerusalem, which led to a significant revival of the community.In addition to allowing Jewish residents, Saladin permitted Jews to worship in the city, with some accounts suggesting they were allowed to worship near the Temple Mount.Under his rule, the Ayyubid dynasty supported the construction of new infrastructure, including houses, markets, and synagogues. This policy was part of a broader effort to restore the multicultural and multi-religious character of Jerusalem after the Crusader era.

David Ainsworth ● 14d

StevenYes, Mr Ainsworth emerges from the bunker into the daylight.'But I note that for the first time in two years he has actually confirmed that he doesn't think that Jewish people have a right to a homeland in Israel. That makes him a self confessed anti-Zionist. Many people, myself included, would equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.'Perhaps now Ms Bond will come clean !Everyone knows that 'anti-Zionism' is antisemitism for surely Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe to establish and support a Jewish homeland'.Thus to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Jewish ergo antisemitic, showing antipathy to a people who have had a presence in the Levant for millennia and fought to establish a state on its current territory.And have developed that territory into the only thriving and democratic state in the region, whilst under constant threat and attack by its more backward Arab neighbours that Mr Ainsworth sheds so many crocodile tears over.And the extreme representation of being anti-Jewish is the antisemitism he blatantly espouses. I wonder what is the psychological driving force behind this hatred ?His interpretation of what happened in the time of Balfour decades ago is part of his cover story for his claim that what he really is concerned with are the rights of the oppressed Palestinians.That was then.This is now.Is it not about time the Palestinians started negotiating for a peaceful and beneficial accommodation with their Jewish neighbours ?Why does he show such a unique concern for this group who may well have taken very hard knocks in the battles of history.But then have many other groups and states.Hobbes described the life of mankind when in a state of war as being "Nasty, brutish and short".Little changes in the Middle East but Western values must be  victorious and maintained.

John Hawkes ● 14d

I think it is ironic that someone who never answers questions should accuse another contributor of ‘not listening’. I did read what you said but I don’t agree with your tendentious version of history, which is based on carefully selected facts while studiously ignoring other facts which would contradict your view..1) The Jews did not ‘leave’ Palestine. They were expelled by the Romans. Nevertheless Jewish people have lived continuously in Jerusalem for over two thousand years, a fact which you conveniently ignore. 2) The majority of Jewish Israelis today are descended from the hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews who were forced to leave their homes in Muslim countries in North Africa and the Middle East, another fact ignored in your post.3) The fact is that millions of Jewish people now live in Israel. You can argue as much as you like about the historical rights and wrong of Jewish immigration. The Jews are not going to leave Israel and there is nowhere else for them to go. The only sensible solution is coexistence with their Arab neighbours. But this takes trust, which at present is lacking.And as a matter of interest, do you think that Croatia should return Istria to the Italians or the Czech Republic return the Sudetenland to Germany or Ukraine return Galicia to Poland or Poland for that matter return the ‘recovered territories’ in the west to Germany?  Or is it just the Jews who must give up their land?

Steven Rose ● 15d

"since long before the area was conquered by the Arabs."It really is pointless trying to tell you the facts. You just put your fingers in ears and go "Not listening, not listening".The Palestinians did not appear with the Arab invasion. They are descended from the Canaanites as are the Jews. The difference being that the Palestinians did not leave.But even if the Palestinians had only been there for the last 1400 years, that would not be a reason to lose their land.A similar period of time since the Anglo-Saxon invasions in English history."Scientific studies indicate that Palestinians are partly descended from ancient Jews (specifically, ancient Levantines/Israelites) who remained in the region and over time converted to Christianity and later Islam. Genetic research shows Palestinians are among the closest relatives to ancient Judeans and share a common Levantine ancestry with modern Jewish populations."You write "It is pointless to try to turn the clock back.". A very funny thing for a Zionist to come out with, who wants to turn the clock back 2,000 years. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.Rather a long time to stay away and then demand the land from close relatives who had stayed.Genetic studies indicate the Ashkenazi Jews are a mix of approximately 40-50% Middle Eastern and 50-60% European (mostly Southern European/Italian) ancestry.

David Ainsworth ● 15d

This thread is actually about left wing parties which feign commitment to high ideals (such as equality, fighting poverty etc) but in practice undermine them through ill-considered policies. The cynical attempt by the Greens to gather the Muslim votes by supporting the right of Palestinians to statehood while denying the right of Jews to a homeland is perhaps the worst example. A history lesson about the Balfour Declaration in 1917 is  both tendentious and irrelevant. It is tendentious because it omits the obvious fact that Jews have lived in what is now Israel and the West Bank for over two thousand years, since long before the area was conquered by the Arabs. It is irrelevant because it ignores the practicalities of the current situation. In the twentieth century many peoples were displaced or compelled to live under foreign rulers. Poles were expelled from Ukraine. Sudeten Germans found themselves living in Czechoslovakia, Italians were expelled from Istria, 800 000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in North Africa and the Middle East. It is pointless to try to turn the clock back. The greatest obstacle to Palestinian statehood is the Palestinian people. A gruesome band of fanatics has taken over Gaza with the stated aim of exterminating the Jewish population of Israel. The Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, having twice refused a deal with Israel, now say that they accept Israek's right to exist (which is more than you do!) but most Israelis don't believe them. Their scepticism is not hard to understand given the popularity of Hamas on the West Bank.

Steven Rose ● 15d

"Many people, myself included, would equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism."Many people would equate Zionism with racism.The Christian Zionism of Arthur Balfour - he of the Balfour Declaration (1917) - many scholars and contemporaries argue that his support for Zionism was rooted in antisemitic beliefs."As Prime Minister, Balfour introduced the Aliens Act 1905, Britain’s first immigration law. Critics argue it was specifically designed to block Jewish refugees fleeing pogroms in the Russian Empire from entering Britain.""Edwin Montagu, the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet at the time, famously denounced the Balfour Declaration as "antisemitic in result". He feared it would encourage countries to treat their own Jewish citizens as outsiders with a "homeland" elsewhere."Edwin Montagu had foresight. But he lost."In a letter to Lord Curzon, written in 1919, Balfour insisted: “For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …the Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires or prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…in short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.’""far profounder import than the desires or prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land". Insouciant and dishonest racism.Balfour was a believer in superior and inferior races. He was prepared to lie in order to cheat the majority in Palestine of their land. He won, the Palestinians lost their land, and, disgustingly, they get the blame for it. The real blame is Britain's.

David Ainsworth ● 15d

I am not sure, John, that it is worth asking David Ainsworth questions, as he never answers them. But I note that for the first time in two years he has actually confirmed that he doesn't think that Jewish people have a right to a homeland in Israel. That makes him a self confessed anti-Zionist. Many people, myself included, would equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Steven Rose ● 15d

Mr Ainsworth'And, of course, the Israelis do not accept the principle of the right of return themselves.'To where and from where should the Palestinians return ?

John Hawkes ● 15d

Mr Ainsworth"Apparently the Palestinians have an inalienable right to statehood but the Jews don't have the right to a Jewish homeland in Israel."'Correct. I can't see how it could be otherwise. The UK would never willingly accept a takeover (and an expulsion) by an outsider minority. And nor would they accept their country being renamed'.1) What territory would a state of Palestine occupy ?2) When was a state called Palestine first established and is it universally recognised as such ?3) Are Palestinians universally recognised as a race or ethnic group or are they just an Arab or Islamic tribe ?3) Which Palestinians were taken over and expelled; from where and when did this occur ?4) How long would you say that Jews have had a presence in the region of what is often referred to as the Levant ie the territory that now includes Palestine and Israel ?5) Should the Israelis be expelled and where would they  be relocated to ?6) Which country has been renamed ?7) Should all sides of the conflict not live with the fact that Palestine and Israel are neighbours, both are long established in the region and thus must learn to behave in a way that makes a sharing of territory possible ?8) Do you personally have an objection to this proposition or do you believe that the situation represents a zero sum game with the loser having to leave a region both have occupied for millennia ?

John Hawkes ● 15d

And, of course, the Israelis do not accept the principle of the right of return themselves.

David Ainsworth ● 16d

"Apparently the Palestinians have an inalienable right to statehood but the Jews don't have the right to a Jewish homeland in Israel."Correct. I can't see how it could be otherwise. The UK would never willingly accept a takeover (and an expulsion) by an outsider minority. And nor would they accept their country being renamed.

David Ainsworth ● 16d

8h, and next month the Green Party will vote on a motion that Zionism is a form of racism. Apparently the Palestinians have an inalienable right to statehood but the Jews don't have the right to a Jewish homeland in Israel.

Steven Rose ● 16d

I am not sure that legalising drugs is official Green Party policy but given their other ideas, it wouldn't surprise me if they adopted that one too. What I would like to know is where they intend to find an extra £80 billion to spend on health and social care as well as nearly £200 billion to renationalise the utilities. Taxing the super-rich? Do they really think there are enough super-rich people to finance additional expenditure on that scale? It's childish stuff, designed only to appeal to the 16 year olds they want to enfranchise and to unreformed lefties who still believe, against all the evidence, that there is a socialist solution to the country's problems.

Steven Rose ● 16d

"raising the minimum wage to £15 per hour, a four day working week, increased taxes on the super rich, nationalisation of the 'big five' utilities, cancellation of the independent nuclear deterrent, free school meals, votes for 16 year olds, £20 billion for the NHS, £20 billion for social care etc. etc. "Don't agree with the nuclear deterrent bit but otherwise it sounds great!You forgot about legalising all drugs btw.

Michael Brigo ● 16d

"Here is why new oil extraction won’t lower household bills:1. 80% of the oil extracted in the North Sea is exportedIt’s not the case that the oil extracted in the North Sea goes straight into powering the UK’s energy system. The licences to drill for oil in the North Sea, as well as the equipment and platforms etc required to actually extract the oil, belong to the companies doing the extraction. The likes of Shell and BP are under no obligation to sell this oil to the country it was extracted in. In fact, it is usually more profitable for them to export it and sell for the best price on the open market."So would taking advantage of solar energy for which daylight is needed.  Old EV car batteries are used for storage.

Philippa Bond ● 16d

Your sums don't quite add up, Michael. Under the EU Common Agricultural Policy farmers on average in the UK received a subsidy of £17 700 pa. The loss of this subsidy (or part of it, since British compensatory subsidies have not yet been phased out ) is hardly comparable with an IHT bill running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Which would you prefer, to keep a subsidy £17 000 per year or pay hundreds of thousands up front in death duties? It's not hard, is it?I presume you despise Labour as being too right wing. If that is the case, who do you support? The Greens, an openly sectarian party which is appealing to extremist Muslims in order to get votes, a party which propagates the same kind of ideological idiocy as the Labour left and adds nonsense of its own? Here is a selection of their policies: raising the minimum wage to £15 per hour, a four day working week, increased taxes on the super rich, nationalisation of the 'big five' utilities, cancellation of the independent nuclear deterrent, free school meals, votes for 16 year olds, £20 billion for the NHS, £20 billion for social care etc. etc. Needless to say, there is no indication of where they intend to find the money to pay for all this free stuff. Regarding John's quip about Zack Polanski's former role as a hypnotherapist, I understand that he now regrets having told a woman that she could enlarge her breasts by concentrating very hard, but has he given her her money back?

Steven Rose ● 16d

Mr Brigo'The amusing thing here is that I actually cannot stand the current government - I just think that the Tories were worse and Reform will be even worse (especially now they are stuffed with Tories)'.You of course have the choice of supporting the Greens.Are you and its leader Zack Polanski not both in the women's physical enhancement business ?

John Hawkes ● 16d

"How many hospitals could be built with that kind of money?"As you already said, it's projected 3.4bn over 100 years, so in fact it's not enough to build any hospitals, or not in any time span that I care about."How can you compare an EU subsidy with an IHT bill of hundreds of thousands if not millions of pounds? "The EU gave british farmers approx 3.5bn quids worth of subsidies a year. There's your comparison - wasnt that hard."On that basis no party, having lost an election, would be able to question the policies of the governing party if those measures had been included in the winning election manifesto."It's a fair point but they could just put it in their next manifesto. Like Reform have done (admittedly no manifesto yet), I believe they have promised to lower the min wage, re-instate the 2 child benefit cap and ditch net zero. If those policies are popular then they will win and you can tell me for the next 4 years to stop whining. :)The amusing thing here is that I actually cannot stand the current government - I just think that the Tories were worse and Reform will be even worse (especially now they are stuffed with Tories).

Michael Brigo ● 16d

"I am afraid I don't know how to retrieve posts as far back as last June"No surprise in that, really."Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Israel attacks Iran Forum HomePosted by: Michael BrigoDate/Time: 13/06/25 21:49:00Of course not. But the deal (that was working) was limiting Iran to 3%. Trump violated the deal and pulled the US out.That said, I don't particularly care about Iranian nuclear sites taking a battering, i'm just wary of where it may lead."

David Ainsworth ● 17d

Following the American raid on Iran's nuclear facilities last year, Michael, you posted something to the effect that if Iran's capacity to construct a nuclear bomb had been destroyed, you weren't too bothered. I am afraid I don't know how to retrieve posts as far back as last June, but I remember that one quite distinctly. I was quite surprised to read a post of that kind from someone like yourself.Your answer to three of my questions was that the measures were in the manifesto so they cannot be disputed. That is simply absurd. On that basis no party, having lost an election, would be able to question the policies of the governing party if those measures had been included in the winning election manifesto. For that matter the governing party would be unable to repeal or even modify their own policies once the electorate had voted. On giving up Chagos, which was not in the manifesto, you said you didn't know much about it and didn't particularly care. I would have thought that the expenditure of £3.4 billion would be of interest to every taxpayer. How many hospitals could be built with that kind of money? On the farm tax, you suggested it was far less important than the loss of  EU farm subsidies, which is ridiculous. How can you compare an EU subsidy with an IHT bill of hundreds of thousands if not millions of pounds? And on Iran you didn't answer at all.I believe that all these mistaken policies have something in common.They are the product of an ideologically bankrupt party which impoverishes this country while buying the oil of foreign producers, which forces children out of their school in order to attack 'privilege', which bankrupts farmers in the name of equality, which place more importance on complying with international law than removing the threat  posed by Iran, which promotes anti-colonialism at the expense of a dispossessed colonial people.

Steven Rose ● 17d

"Israel has been at war for over two years with an enemy territory ruled by a genocidal group of terrorists whose aim is to wipe out the Jewish population of Israel."Israel has been at war with the Palestinian majority population since 1948. Before that the Zionists were planning the coming war, the expulsion and the expropriation, and meanwhile committing acts of terrorism against their British erstwhile benefactors and protectors. Suddenly this immigrant minority were claiming that they were fighting an "anti-colonial" liberation struggle. And thanks to the uncommon alliance at the UN between the USA and the Soviet Union, enough members of the small UN of 1947 were pressured into voting for Partition, which favoured the the Jews over the Arabs.No Arab country voted for Partition. That should have been a clue as to what would happen. But no, and here we are in an ongoing mess.The Palestinians were there in the land, they had always been there, they still are there (some of them), but they were in the way. Trouble came to them. They did not go looking for it. But now they get the blame for it. In Western eyes anyway, and we always know best.

David Ainsworth ● 17d

1) I am perfectly aware that mad Ed Miliband has only banned  new oil extraction in the North Sea, though the ban has been modified to allow companies to drill for oil in pre-existing fields. But you haven’t answered my question. Regardless of whether a ban was a manifesto pledge, is it sensible to limit UK production while continuing to import oil from abroad?What I think frankly is irrelevant, the government made a pledge and a majority of people voted for it. I didn't agree with the Brexit vote but I got over it.By the way, I thought you were rising above personal attacks, but now he is 'mad' Ed?2) Again you haven’t answered the question on independent schools but just repeated the mantra of a manifesto pledge. If you are a parent struggling to pay schools fees for your child because adequate state provision is lacking, is it fair to impose a 20% increase which forces you to withdraw your child from the school?What I think frankly is irrelevant, the government made a pledge and a majority of people voted for it. I didn't agree with the Brexit vote but I got over it. A reminder, 93% of children do NOT go to a private school, so you aren't exactly whining to help the majority. 3) My point about the original  farm tax is that it was extremely ill-judged and caused unnecessary distress. The modification is welcome but it won’t bring back the farmer who committed suicide. Furthermore it is likely that some farmers who operate farms barely making a profit will still be forced to sell up because they can’t afford to pay the tax bills.I would be more inclined to say that the farmers who lost their EU subsidies are probably more hard done by. But you do you, one farmers life is suddenly more important than all those dead Palestinians again.4) I remember that you too supported Trump’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is clear that the Iranian nuclear programme was severely disrupted but a raid cannot destroy the knowledge to build nuclear capability. The Iranians are clearly prevaricating on the issue of uranium enrichment in the hope of one day obtaining enough material to make a bomb. If that happens they will be invulnerable to attack. Is that a prospect you welcome. If not, what do you propose should be done to prevent it? In my opinion the only solution is regime change, which will be good for the world and good for the Iranians. Only Trump can bring this about.The figure of 30 000 dead comes from dissidents in Iran, where thousands of people have lost family and friends. The comparison with Israel is entirely inappropriate. The Iranian regime murdered 30 000 peaceful protesters over two weeks in January. Israel has been at war for over two years with an enemy territory ruled by a genocidal group of terrorists whose aim is to wipe out the Jewish population of Israel. Of the 70 000 Palestinians who have died , between 20 000 and 30 000 are thought to be Hamas militants"The figure of 30 000 dead comes from dissidents in Iran" and if you believe that, I have some yellowcake to sell you.Please remind me where I supported the attacks on Iran btw...5) Yes, the discussions with Mauritius started under the Tories, though I suspect under the influence of woke Foreign Office officials. But you haven’t answered the question. Saying you haven’t got an opinion is a cop out. Are you happy that the British taxpayer is going to pay £100 million per year for the next 99 years, a total net cost of £3.4 billion,  to lease a territory the UK already possesses? Recently the Chagossians themselves have stated clearly that they oppose rule from Mauritius. Regardless of what Nigel Farage (whom I don’t support) does, do you think it is right to ignore the wishes of the Chagossians?Sorry but I have to stick to my original answer but perhaps expand a little, if i'm brutally honest - i haven't really paid a great deal of attention. You might be right, I don't really know or care that much. 6) Yes, the increase in the minimum wage was included in the manifesto, but was it a sensible proposal ?  Any chance of an answer?What I think frankly is irrelevant, the government made a pledge and a majority of people voted for it. I didn't agree with the Brexit vote but I got over it.Personally I think the only area in which you might have a teeny weenie leg to stand on is the farm subsidies, and the gov gave way on it so there's not much point in whining on as you got what you wanted.

Michael Brigo ● 17d

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/plants/china-has-planted-so-many-trees-around-the-taklamakan-desert-that-its-turned-this-biological-void-into-a-carbon-sink

Philippa Bond ● 17d

https://foe.scot/why-new-oil-extraction-wont-lower-bills/#:~:text=It's%20not%20the%20case%20that,is%20imported%20from%20other%20countries.

Philippa Bond ● 17d

You seem rather more concerned with manifesto pledges, Michael, than the government, who introduced the farm tax though it was not mentioned in the manifesto, and raised National Insurance, though the manifesto pledged not to do so.But to address your points:1) I am perfectly aware that mad Ed Miliband has only banned  new oil extraction in the North Sea, though the ban has been modified to allow companies to drill for oil in pre-existing fields. But you haven’t answered my question. Regardless of whether a ban was a manifesto pledge, is it sensible to limit UK production while continuing to import oil from abroad?2) Again you haven’t answered the question on independent schools but just repeated the mantra of a manifesto pledge. If you are a parent struggling to pay schools fees for your child because adequate state provision is lacking, is it fair to impose a 20% increase which forces you to withdraw your child from the school?3) My point about the original  farm tax is that it was extremely ill-judged and caused unnecessary distress. The modification is welcome but it won’t bring back the farmer who committed suicide. Furthermore it is likely that some farmers who operate farms barely making a profit will still be forced to sell up because they can’t afford to pay the tax bills.4) I remember that you too supported Trump’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is clear that the Iranian nuclear programme was severely disrupted but a raid cannot destroy the knowledge to build nuclear capability. The Iranians are clearly prevaricating on the issue of uranium enrichment in the hope of one day obtaining enough material to make a bomb. If that happens they will be invulnerable to attack. Is that a prospect you welcome. If not, what do you propose should be done to prevent it? In my opinion the only solution is regime change, which will be good for the world and good for the Iranians. Only Trump can bring this about.The figure of 30 000 dead comes from dissidents in Iran, where thousands of people have lost family and friends. The comparison with Israel is entirely inappropriate. The Iranian regime murdered 30 000 peaceful protesters over two weeks in January. Israel has been at war for over two years with an enemy territory ruled by a genocidal group of terrorists whose aim is to wipe out the Jewish population of Israel. Of the 70 000 Palestinians who have died , between 20 000 and 30 000 are thought to be Hamas militants.5) Yes, the discussions with Mauritius started under the Tories, though I suspect under the influence of woke Foreign Office officials. But you haven’t answered the question. Saying you haven’t got an opinion is a cop out. Are you happy that the British taxpayer is going to pay £100 million per year for the next 99 years, a total net cost of £3.4 billion,  to lease a territory the UK already possesses? Recently the Chagossians themselves have stated clearly that they oppose rule from Mauritius. Regardless of what Nigel Farage (whom I don’t support) does, do you think it is right to ignore the wishes of the Chagossians?6) Yes, the increase in the minimum wage was included in the manifesto, but was it a sensible proposal ?  Any chance of an answer?

Steven Rose ● 17d

1) Does it make sense to ban oil extraction in the North Sea while importing oil from abroad, effectively exporting pollution?They haven't 'banned extraction' - extraction continues - they have simply said no new oil licences (as per their manifesto btw)The plan is not to simply stop extracting and replace with energy from abroad - it is to continue to ramp up our own clean energy generation so that we are not beholden to the whims of foreign governments.2) Is it fair to force parents to withdraw their children from independent schools, especially when appropriate alternatives in the state system are lacking, simply because they cannot afford a 20% increase in the fees? Is it fair on the children?As previously stated - manifesto pledge. Also undermined by the fact that a state school in Putney is shutting down due to the lack of students. Odd because you think it would be over subscribed with all of those kids who were in private but can no longer afford it?3) Was it reasonable to impose IHT on farmers on farmers whose land is worth over£1 million regardless of whether the farms actually make a profit, a measure which caused immense distress and even led to suicide. Even though the threshold has now been increased to £2.5 million or £5 million, wouldn’t it have been better to get it right first time around?Already u-turned on so not sure what the point is of discussing this - presumably you are very happy?4) Do you support Starmer’s decision to refuse the Americans permission to use British bases for any future attack on Iran, given that the Iranian is clea4ly trying to develop a nuclear capability an£ last month killed 30 000 of their own citizens?Yes I support it. Three points - 1) According to yourself and others Trump put an end to their nuclear ambitions with their last set of strikes. Do you now accept that it was a failure then? At the time you crowed about what a huge success it was. 2) There's no evidence of 30,000 protesters dead that I can see, certainly a lot of dead yes.  When I asked you to evidence this before you said "I saw it on TV somewhere" 3) when did you suddenly start caring about dead civilians? Israel has killed over 70,000 (figures accepted by the IDF, the US and recently the Israeli government) and yet last time I checked you were fine with it?5) Do you think it is moral to cede the Chagos Islands to Mauritius against the wishes of the native Chagossians , or sensible to lease Diego Garcia back at the cost of billions of pounds?A process started by the tories but frankly I don't have an opinion either way. Slightly surprised you suddenly found yourself caring about the Chagosians - why didn't you get on that private plane with Nigel and try to take them some cake?6) Do you agree with the increase in the minimum wage even if this makes it more difficult for thousands of young people to find a job?Manifesto pledge.Whine whine whine.

Michael Brigo ● 17d

You want performative?:-"Nigel Farage travels 6,000 miles to be turned away from Chagos Islands by strict border controls"https://metro.co.uk/2026/02/22/nigel-farage-turned-away-chagos-islands-strict-border-controls-27051384/So he fails to support his by-election candidate in Gorton and Denton, who has been happy to be backed by Tommy Robinson.--------------------------"Farage has faced ongoing criticism regarding his attendance in his Clacton constituency. As of 21 February 2026, reports surfaced that he had missed his tenth meeting of the Clacton Town Board. Instead of attending a regeneration meeting on 30 January 2026, he was seen in Newcastle meeting supporters. He has previously defended his absences by stating he is juggling his role as a local MP with leading a national political party."

David Ainsworth ● 17d

Let’s cut out the personal remarks and address the issues.1) Does it make sense to ban oil extraction in the North Sea while importing oil from abroad, effectively exporting pollution?2) Is it fair to force parents to withdraw their children from independent schools, especially when appropriate alternatives in the state system are lacking, simply because they cannot afford a 20% increase in the fees? Is it fair on the children?3) Was it reasonable to impose IHT on farmers on farmers whose land is worth over£1 million regardless of whether the farms actually make a profit, a measure which caused immense distress and even led to suicide. Even though the threshold has now been increased to £2.5 million or £5 million, wouldn’t it have been better to get it right first time around?4) Do you support Starmer’s decision to refuse the Americans permission to use British bases for any future attack on Iran, given that the Iranian is clea4ly trying to develop a nuclear capability an£ last month killed 30 000 of their own citizens?5) Do you think it is moral to cede the Chagos Islands to Mauritius against the wishes of the native Chagossians , or sensible to lease Diego Garcia back at the cost of billions of pounds? 6) Do you agree with the increase in the minimum wage even if this makes it more difficult for thousands of young people to find a job?

Steven Rose ● 17d

I don't know about performative government, but the original in this thread is a clear example of performative posting.

Richard Carter ● 17d

I bet you had to have a really hard think to come up with that zinger.

Michael Brigo ● 17d

Mr Brigo'The fact that you aren't able to tell that my post was in direct response to your original post is a failure of your cognitive abilities.'"Ooooh missus. Now there's a sophisticated phrase.Another less so but just as true springs to mind on reading posts from you such as this.A clue to test your 'cognitive ability'.It includes the words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' !

John Hawkes ● 17d

The fact that you aren't able to tell that my post was in direct response to your original post is a failure of your cognitive abilities.

Michael Brigo ● 18d

You don’t have to be right wing to see that these policies are misguided. Even the government recognises this, which is why it has rowed back on some of them, though not enough in my opinion. So as regards the farm tax, the threshold at which IHT is payable has been extended from £1 million to £2.5 or £5 million. On the North Sea, Ed Miliband is now allowing new drilling at pre-existent fields. And the Chagos deal still has not been ratified, while Starmer awaits a change of policy from the United States. Starmer may also reconsider his refusal to allow the Americans to use British bases (like the Chagos Islands) once Trump decides that the Iranians are unwilling to give up their nuclear programme. I would be happy if the government U-turned on independent schools as well, but as Wes Streeting said, it would be even better if it got the policy right first time around.

Steven Rose ● 18d

"the motive in every case being the wish to win the approval of leftist ideologues in the party"Starmer wanting to "win the approval of leftist ideologues in the party." - you really cannot be serious!You probably feel that Farage is middle-of-the-road.

David Ainsworth ● 19d

Michael, you really are extraordinarily boorish. Are you incapable of expressing your point of view in a civil manner? I don’t think my last comment can be described as a ‘whine’. I simply assumed, when  you pointed out that two of the measures I mentioned were in Labour’s manifesto, that you were referring to my previous post, where I highlighted the farm tax, the minimum wage and the use of British bases. It is perfectly true, as you say, that net zero and VAT on independent schools were in the manifesto, though handing over the Chagos Islands against the will of its inhabitants certainly was not. My point is that all these measures are spectacularly stupid, adopted without due consideration of  the harm they will cause, the motive in every case being the wish to win the approval of leftist ideologues in the party. I don’t care whether these policies were in the manifesto or not. If they are stupid, they are stupid and should be abandoned or suitably modified.

Steven Rose ● 19d

You started this thread with 3 examples to prove your point.1) Net zero - included in the manifesto2) Chagos - not included in the manifesto3) VAT on private schools - included in the manifestoWhen I called you out about it you have now decided to whine about something else entirely.How about sticking to the point you originally failed to make?

Michael Brigo ● 19d

"refusing in advance to allow Trump to use Britush* bases to attack Iran on the grounds that such an attack would contravene international law, even though the Iranian government killed 30 000 of its own citizens over two weeks in January and clearly intends to develop a nuclear bomb"Perhaps "brutish" was the intended word. Anyway, Mr Rose is apparently happy to demand that Britain puts its forces and indeed the country at risk in order to obey the demands of the mad King Trump in his desire to smash one country which has killed thousands of civilians and just might be developing nuclear weapons, while Trump's country has for decades pumped billions of dollars into another country which has killed tens of thousands of civilians and actually has material for up to 200 nuclear weapons, with an estimated 90 existing warheads.And, of course, Mr Rose claims to care for the rights of the deported Chagossians (it helps his attack on Labour), but he does not care what they might think about this use of their island. He does not care about deported or "transferred" original inhabitants who get in the way of colonial powers or other Europeans.

David Ainsworth ● 19d

In actual fact only raising the minimum wage was included in the Labour manifesto. The farm tax was not included and indeed before the election Labour shadow ministers said they had no plans to change inheritance tax reliefs for farmers. However a measure remains performative, regardless of whether it is included in a manifesto, if its aim is simply to win plaudits rather than achieve a worthwhile goal.

Steven Rose ● 19d

Other examples, Sue, of performative measures by Labour include1) imposing IHT on farms, which even at the increased threshold of £2.5 million or £5 million for a couple will mean that many farmers inheriting valuable but barely profitable land will be forced to sell up2) raising the minimum wage, which is fine if you have got a job but makes it harder to find a job if you are unemployed since many employers may not be able to afford to hire extra  staff3) refusing in advance to allow Trump to use Britush bases to attack Iran on the grounds that such an attack would contravene international law, even though the Iranian government killed 30 000 of its own citizens over two weeks in January and clearly intends to develop a nuclear bomb The aim of these measures is to appear egalitarian, caring and respectful of the law, without considering the likely costs of such an approach. It's virtue signalling rather than government

Steven Rose ● 19d

Seems amazing that I have to remind you again that two out of your three current whines were in the Labour party manifesto.

Michael Brigo ● 19d

‘As of late 2025, over 50 private schools in the UK have closed or announced closures following the introduction of the 20% VAT levy on fees on January 1, 2025. While some institutions explicitly cited the tax as the reason, others attributed closures to the combined pressures of VAT and rising operational costs. Further, around 100 to over 200 additional closures are expected over the next three years.’Well done Reeves!👎🏻  Labour Champagne Socialists & Lefty Luvvies will be able to absorb the extra cost but the families who scrimp and save to enable their children to go to an independent school are the ones who will be affected.  Can you imagine how traumatic it must be for the children to experience such a huge upheaval in their young life?  Is Corbyn still being vocal in dissent of Chagos?

Sue Hammond ● 19d

You came rather late to concern about Chagos. Corbyn has been raising the issue since 1975.

David Ainsworth ● 19d