Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[ainsworth74]

Such an assurance is not worth the paper it is written on, except to protect BP should the lease have been signed by Houchen and his lackeys in bad faith and should there be a subsequent attempt to void the lease.

Yes, I had a sudden outbreak of optimism and positivity when I said it was "reassuring". I'll try to make sure it never happens again

 

[SuspectUsual]

However, anyone can give such an assurance, whatever an ‘unacceptable act’ is, and BP and Equinor’s concern will be that they will not lose out on their investment, not how government money and property has been used

Such an assurance is not worth the paper it is written on, except to protect BP should the lease have been signed by Houchen and his lackeys in bad faith and should there be a subsequent attempt to void the lease

Indeed.

I'm not aware of there being any legal definition of an "unacceptable act", and the absence of capitalisation suggests I'm right and there isn't. In which case, its a vague, subjective phrase that will definitely do one thing in the future if its invoked, and possibly a second. The "possible" is that it may give BP some protection; the "definite" is that it'll provide rich pickings for m'learned friends for years to come

 

[MikeWM]

It was as bad as anything Diane Abbott said in her Observer article, and she was rightly thrown out of Labour for it.

I disagree. Again in Abbott's case she put something in a very clumsy way (and something I don't agree with in the slightest anyway, all this 'hierarchy of racism' nonsense), but it was hardly a serious enough offence to lose the whip. People - politicians in particular - have to be able to say what they think.

 

[DarloRich]

Andrew Bridgen has decided not to appeal against his expulsion from the Conservatives, and this morning has joined Laurence Fox's Reclaim party, becoming its first MP.

A party funded, according to the media, by a well known owner of nicely painted trains.

It’s almost as though Houchen is friends with bigwigs at The Northern Echo.

The great daily of the north in the pocket of the politicians? - i wont have it i tell you!

 

[najaB]

I do think it was simply a poor decision to make that tweet though, rather than offensive or indeed the silly anti-semitic slurs that get put around when people are trying to discredit other people [1] - and I don't see how it can be justified to kick him out of his political party on that basis.

If it was a one-off and he immediately apologised for the offence - even if not for the views - then I agree that kicking him out would be overkill. But, from what I've seen, it seems that he regularly expresses questionable views. So maybe he should be invited to leave, even if not actively thrown out.

 

[ainsworth74]

It would seem the local Tories have now gone on the offensive regarding Teesworks this is a message on Facebook from Simon Clarke this afternoon:

I'm angry. And I think you deserve the facts.

I need to write a post about Teesworks, the former steelworks site at Redcar. Because it's being subjected to a smear campaign designed to shatter confidence in this project - and it's being done by cynical politicians who don't care about the impact on our community or our local economy.

The picture belows shows the new £107million South Bank Quay and the construction of SeAH Wind’s £450 million offshore wind factory behind it.

These are just part of the largest and most important regeneration project in the whole of the UK. The tens of thousands of well-paying jobs being created there are in offshore wind turbine manufacture, hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.

It is no exaggeration to say that our area's future depends on this project. These are the jobs that will finally fill the gaping void left not only by the loss of steel-making, but also the contraction of our chemicals and shipbuilding industries too. We all know how much this matters not just for our generation, but for generations to come. For a healthy local economy for you, your kids and your grandkids, we NEED this to succeed.

That's why the Conservative Government has spent hundreds of millions remediating this site - cleaning it up so that these new industries can move in.

But the task is HUGE - this is an area larger than Gibraltar that's been home to intensive industry for well over a century. And so the costs associated are huge as well.

That's why Ben Houchen - Tees Valley Mayor has quite rightly leveraged the public funding he has been given to secure millions of additional private investment, to allow MORE of the site of the site to be cleaned up MUCH MORE QUICKLY than would otherwise have been possible.

For this he has been subjected to a sustained smear campaign, both in parts of the media but more importantly by Labour and Liberal Democrats politicians who are frankly desperate for this project to fail - because they want the Government to fail. If this all works, if these jobs are created and our local economy booms, frankly what would be the point of them?

So Private Eye magazine have reported, incorrectly, that Teesworks had sold land worth £100 million for £100. In fact the land is worth a fraction of that amount because of the condition it's in - while the deal agreed with SeAH wind will earn the taxpayer over £40 million and deliver £7 million a year for 40 YEARS in business rates - all while creating over 2,000 jobs.

This is the extent of the misrepresentation we are having to contend with.

And it's part of a pattern. We all know the story that's been circulating for months about the so-called "ecocide" off the Tees Estuary. An independent report led by some of the most senior scientists in the country disproved this in January, and just at the end of last month Professor Alex Ford of Portsmouth University released new findings.

He exposed crabs to pyridine (the subject of this theory) at concentrations 400 TIMES higher than those recorded by the Environment Agency in the Tees, and not a single crab died.

But this is the world we are living in - the same newspapers who leapt on the crab conspiracy theories have been silent about this. The same MPs like Andy McDonald and Alex Cunningham (and ex MPs like Anna Turley) who have used every opportunity to frighten people have done nothing to apologise or correct the record.

And why? Politics. Politics at its worst, politics at its most destructive, politics at its most cynical.

They genuinely do not care about whether what they say is true. They know if they say it often enough, it hurts the Tories. And that is the awful, depressing truth.

This campaign is damaging investor confidence in Teesworks. It is damaging our area's reputation. And it is utterly untrue. But all we can do is to share the truth with you, the public, so you can help us to challenge this on forums like Facebook, in the pub, on Twitter, on the doorstep - everywhere this anti-Teesside narrative is being pursued.

Of course they could just publish the details about board meetings, reports, the process behind the various decisions that have been made and the results of the competitions that must surely have been run before awarding various contracts and etc but there doesn't seem to be much sign of that. As I've said before the only significant defence is to say that anyone questioning what's going on in is trying to pursue an "anti-Teesside narrative".

Anyway, Mr Houchen has gone even further on Twitter this afternoon as well:

Andy McDonald is a coward who stood up in Parliament and lied. He made unfounded accusations about the work we're doing. Accusations that if he had said them outside of Parliament would result in him being sued for defamation. he has abused his parliamentary privilege, which has now resulted in investors being unduly concerned because of these lies that are being repeated by Labour politicians.

His unfounded, defamatory comments could cost Teesside millions in investment and thousands of local jobs. Thankfully we've been able to provide assurances that his comments are completely false. Assurances that have dispelled all investor concerns. He is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the title of Member of Parliament.

Andy McDonald stood up in Parliament and lied to try and destroy the progress we've made because he thinks slowing down progress helps the Labour Party politically. These are desperate claims, by a desperate politician on the brink of deselection. This self-centred coward is throwing around countless unfounded claims to try and repair his own political career within the Labour Party without any regard for the damage he could cause to the area he is meant to represent.

(Emphasis as per original - Also I've had to hand type that as Mr Houchen doesn't see fit to make it accessible to users of screenreaders or similar technology by providing alt text!)

https://twitter.com/BenHouchen/status/1656266700684247040

This is the sort of thing I mean. To me, admittedly not a political ally of either Simon Clarke nor Ben Houchen, these responses seem frankly hysterical. Rather than providing a rebuttal backed by evidence of how they've spent millions of public money they seem to just be ranting. Playing the man not the ball as it were.

Mr Houchen has since gotten into a spat on Twitter with Richard Brooks one of the Private Eye journalists that's been covering the story of Teesworks:

Recently there were also lies propagated by Private Eye who suggested we had sold a ‘valuable’ piece of land for £100. This is untrue. The truth is that a deal with SeAH Wind, that will create 2000+ jobs,will return £40m+ to the public purse and £7m pa for 40yrs in business rates

You did sell it for £100. Here's the Land Registry proof. We also reported the income that the public sector keeps (worth about 18% of what 90%-private-owned Teesworks Ltd gets). Maybe your press office will now answer questions (having refused to before and since the piece).

https://twitter.com/rbrooks45/status/1656306240685842432?s=20

Here’s the liar in chief. A man who misrepresents basic facts. He thinks that by showing a transfer deed this shows all the value for a land transaction, even though we have explained to him we got £15m for deal and £26m over 40 years plus we get £7m a year in business rates.

No - you refused to supply any details. What is the £15m for? (You have only mentioned since the piece - despite plenty of opportunities beforehand and I've asked umpteen times since). And - read the piece again - we included the £26m.

Lies. You didn’t include the £26m in your original piece. Assume you’ll print a retraction and provide a full apology when you accept you are wrong

Do you read before ranting? We covered the £0.65m a year for 40 years, which is £26m in cash terms. Which we value in present money at £14m, just as we valued the £3.65m a year Teesworks gets at app £75m for like with like comparison.

And I repeat - what was sold for £15m?

https://twitter.com/rbrooks45/status/1656313238173147136?s=20

Here’s a demonstration of misrepresentations by Private Eye. They say 0.65m a year over 40 years is £14m. Disingenuous in the extreme by not using £26m (the real answer) & then after printing trying to justify their smears and misinformation. No mention of £15m plus £7m in rates

That's financially illiterate. We say £0.65m a year over 40 years is "worth" £14m now. It's absolutely clear what we're saying, just as it is in valuing the £3.65m a year the private sector gets for 40 years at £75m. Completely even-handed comparison. Again, what's the £15m for?

It’s misleading and you trumpet that we only get 0.65m a year but that’s a lie. We get £7m a year in rates, we get £26m in rent and we get £15m. This has been explained to you multiple times but now you’re being called out you’re wriggling.

Again - what's the £15m for? Never explained. On the rent and the amounts to each party the piece was entirely clear. If you want to say £26m to public then it's £146m to private! But we valued both at present day. Rates are independent of the transactions so that's red herring.

No, you’re making assumptions again that lead to misinformation and lies. We got £15m for the land plus £26m in rent plus £7m a year in rates. That’s what we got for a piece of land worth significantly less than £15m as independently valued by 3 different organisations

Oh plus £450m investment and 2000 local jobs

1. I put the analysis to you before writing. You refused to respond. 2. You then bring in another £15m and won't substantiate. The docs show the land was sold for £100. So what exactly was sold for £15m?

The site was sold for more than £15m. You can keep asking the same question but you’ll get the same answer.

When a "site" is sold that will normally mean a freehold or leasehold interest. We know the land interest you had was sold for £100. What else did you have to sell? I will keep asking, as I hope others do, because "the site" is meaningless and this is a public asset.

We didn’t sell anything else. Just the land for £15m+. The whole value of a land transaction does not necessarily have to appear in a transfer. You know this but you pretend otherwise. Also, by ‘asset’ you mean a site that was valued with £482m of liabilities

https://twitter.com/BenHouchen/status/1656325728160415749?s=20

And that seems to be the end of it so far. Again, I'm not a political ally of Mr Houchen but to me that doesn't seem like the exchange of someone who welcome scrutiny but is actually quite angry. He could surely address these concerns using the documents that must surely exist demonstrating the decision making process? Either way it seems a highly unedifying performance from an elected politician interacting with a member of the media!

 

[SuspectUsual]

I like Richard Brooke’s way of dealing with the hysterical Houchen. Stay polite, keep asking straightforward questions, keep pointing out when they’re not answered.

 

[Gloster]

Richard Brooks is a former tax inspector specialising in corporate taxation. He knows his stuff.

 

[nw1]

Each to their own, I suppose. Looking at their website, I don't see anything obvious I disagree with, and I really like their specific emphasis on freedom of speech, especially given things like the Online 'Safety' Bill coming down the road.

Its leader, Laurence Fox, seems to have exhibited some questionable behaviour, which definitely rings alarm bells for me.

Laurence Fox to be sued by RuPaul's Drag Race star and charity boss over 'paedophile' comments

Drag star Crystal and Simon Blake, deputy chair of the Stonewall charity, both say they are suing actor Laurence Fox.

news.sky.com

A RuPaul's Drag Race star and a charity boss have said they are suing actor Laurence Fox for defamation following arguments on Twitter in which he called some of his critics "paedophiles".

Fox has since deleted the tweets, but said he made the comments after being "falsely smeared as a racist" when he criticised Sainsbury's for supporting Black History Month.

Drag star Crystal and Simon Blake, the deputy chair of Stonewall and chief executive of Mental Health First Aid England, have both said they are suing Fox.

Also:

Laurence Fox banned from Twitter for posting LGBTQ+ swastika

The Holocaust Memorial Trust was among the organisations condemning the actor for sharing the ‘vile’ image

www.standard.co.uk

Laurence Fox was hit with a temporary Twitter ban over the weekend after posting a picture of a swastika made out of four LGBTQ+ Pride flags.
The controversial activist, 44, sparked a huge social media furore after posting the image on Sunday evening.


“Oh blessed and most holy month!,” he captioned the image which was met with a flood of criticism from users

 

[DarloRich]

And that seems to be the end of it so far. Again, I'm not a political ally of Mr Houchen but to me that doesn't seem like the exchange of someone who welcome scrutiny but is actually quite angry. He could surely address these concerns using the documents that must surely exist demonstrating the decision making process? Either way it seems a highly unedifying performance from an elected politician interacting with a member of the media!

Agreed - also as an aside i thought the value of any consideration ( of whatever nature) offered in exchange for land needed to be noted on the land registry transfer form

Each to their own, I suppose. Looking at their website, I don't see anything obvious I disagree with, and I really like their specific emphasis on freedom of speech, especially given things like the Online 'Safety' Bill coming down the road.

They are not interested in free speech. They are intrusted in consequenceless speech for right wingers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Mr Houchen has since gotten into a spat on Twitter with Richard Brooks one of the Private Eye journalists that's been covering the story of Teesworks

When any politician of any colour reacts like this, it is usually far more illuminating than anything they could say.

Private Eye don’t get these types of investigations wrong very often- they’re the ones who kept at the Post Office Horizon scandal when nobody else cared, likewise they pushed at the Bristol heart scandal when others backed away. So it’s fascinating that Houchen reacts as he has.

Next question: where’s all the money from the airport gone?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

Agreed - also as an aside i thought the value of any consideration ( of whatever nature) offered in exchange for land needed to be noted on the land registry transfer form

It’s more complicated if other agreements don’t form part of the property transfer. For instance, the value of a mortgage or a secured loan isn’t shown on the property deed, although the security itself is listed.

But Houchen has provided no evidence to suggest what- if any- other agreements may be in place, and there are no restrictive covenants or charges listed on the Title either. So if there are other agreements, I’d question how enforceable they may be.

 

[DarloRich]

Next question: where’s all the money from the airport gone?

Interesting Facebook post from Houchen about the airport - lots of planes shown and lots of people praising Houchen.

No answer of the question how many were there in service ( suspect 1 KLM and 1 charter)

 

[Tetchytyke]

I really like their specific emphasis on freedom of speech

Freedom of speech…if you agree with them.

Fox and the rest of them don’t seem so keen for people to freely express opinions about, say, LGBT issues, and don’t seem so keen for companies to freely express support for things such as Black History Month.

 

[ainsworth74]

Next question: where’s all the money from the airport gone?

That sounds like someone who doesn't understand Teesside and is actively working against its interest. Very disappointing to see someone else just playing politics for the benefit of the Labour Party by pushing an agenda with no merit rather than focusing on the good work being done and the thousands of jobs that are being created.

Can I have a job doing Houchen's PR? I think I've got the style down!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Interesting Facebook post from Houchen about the airport - lots of planes shown and lots of people praising Houchen.

Eastern pulled out when the subsidy stopped. Ryanair are back with a few twice-weekly bucket-and-spade flights to Alicante and the like, and I assume they’re paid very well for it.

Where the rest of the money went, who knows. But a twice-weekly Ryanair flight to Alicante was worth every penny to develop important business links on Teesside.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

That sounds like someone who doesn't understand Teesside and is actively working against its interest.

Mention something about woke and you’ve cracked it!

 

[Gloster]

I am waiting for the “I challenge him to repeat his accusations outside the House of Commons” ploy, followed by the “These accusations are so trivial that it is not worth me bothering to reply” move. Often followed by a move by several of those involved to somewhere we don’t have an extradition treaty with.

I wonder if this will increase sales of the Eye on Teesside. Which will probably be held against them by those involved.

 

[MikeWM]

They are not interested in free speech. They are intrusted in consequenceless speech for right wingers.

I agree that some are - and when I was on the 'hard-ish' left I saw the same phenomenon there. Indeed there are many people all over the political spectrum who do appear to want 'free speech for me but not for thee'. I am not one of those. From what I've seen of Laurence Fox, I don't think he is either.

--

Freedom of speech…if you agree with them.

Fox and the rest of them don’t seem so keen for people to freely express opinions about, say, LGBT issues, and don’t seem so keen for companies to freely express support for things such as Black History Month.

As above. There's a big difference between wanting people to be able to say something, compared with liking what they say or disagreeing with it. The whole point of freedom of speech is to debate things and to hear points of view that you don't necessarily like or agree with.

I don't believe Fox wants to ban companies supporting political causes either, he just doesn't think they *should*. I'd agree with him on that. This 'treating companies as if they were people' thing is yet another unfortunate import we seem to be taking from the USA.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't believe Fox wants to ban companies supporting political causes either, he just doesn't think they *should*. I'd agree with him on that. This 'treating companies as if they were people' thing is yet another unfortunate import we seem to be taking from the USA.

No, he just wants to prevent them supporting political causes he disagrees with.

A company is just a collection of people. Why shouldn’t a company express opinions? Again, Fox just thinks they shouldn’t express opinions he disagrees with. He doesn’t mind Wetherspoons cheering on Brexit, oddly enough.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

I am waiting for the “I challenge him to repeat his accusations outside the House of Commons” ploy, followed by the “These accusations are so trivial that it is not worth me bothering to reply” move.

Likewise.

Houchen hasn’t sued Private Eye, who don’t have Parliamentary privilege.

 

[DarloRich]

Houchen hasn’t sued Private Eye, who don’t have Parliamentary privilege.

Absolutely - why hasn't Houchen sued PE if the allegations are as baseless and damaging to his reputation as he suggests. PE have been running stories on the Freeport, Teesworks and the Airport in every issue for the last couple of months so there must be plenty of evidence to support such a claim.

I am not one of those. From what I've seen of Laurence Fox, I don't think he is either.

I shall agree to disagree - I think you are being extremely generous.

EDIT - but then I am a massive cynic so perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle

 

[nw1]

I agree that some are - and when I was on the 'hard-ish' left I saw the same phenomenon there. Indeed there are many people all over the political spectrum who do appear to want 'free speech for me but not for thee'. I am not one of those. From what I've seen of Laurence Fox, I don't think he is either.

So why has he gone around calling people "paedophiles" when they are not?

And as for the LGBTQ swastika thing, what on earth is that about? It's not the LGBTQ community that's resembled the extreme right over the years.

While I am something of a critic of extended lockdowns myself (due to them likely causing more harm than good) I really wouldn't want all the right-wing baggage that comes with Bridgen or Reclaim and would certainly be calling for a by-election were I to be a North West Leicestershire resident.

 

[takno]

So why has he gone around calling people "paedophiles" when they are not?

And as for the LGBTQ swastika thing, what on earth is that about? It's not the LGBTQ community that's resembled the extreme right over the years.

While I am something of a critic of extended lockdowns myself (due to them likely causing more harm than good) I really wouldn't want all the right-wing baggage that comes with Bridgen or Reclaim and would certainly be calling for a by-election were I to be a North West Leicestershire resident.

There is quite a lot of unpleasant reactionary extremism in trans activists and "allies". As is quite often the case with antifa and other such organisations, there are people whose primary motivation in being an "ally" is to make other people angry and have a fight, both digitally and physically. That isn't to say there's anything very acceptable about the way Reform are playing to that, I'm just pointing out that they perhaps have a better handle on what's going on than you do. This is all looking more and more like it's gearing up for big scrap that's violent, damaging, light on facts and ultimately very much against the interests of any of the minorities or other groups it's being done in the name of.

In terms of the lockdowns, I tend to regard the rise of parties like Reform as one of the predictable and predicted consequences of them. Political extremism, economic turmoil and large-scale breakdown of respect along age, class and tribal grounds were pretty high on my list of concerns from day one.

In mainstream politics I'm concerned that the Tories have a better grasp of what's actually happening in sections of the country than Labour and, as a party which has eliminated its sensible wing, may be able to turn more easily it to their benefit. I think we want and need a government which acts credibly, sensibly and respectfully in support of the population at large, but I don't know if we have any shared sense as a nation of what that looks like, and if not then that's something which needs to be built before people will vote for it.

 

[nw1]

There is quite a lot of unpleasant reactionary extremism in trans activists and "allies". As is quite often the case with antifa and other such organisations, there are people whose primary motivation in being an "ally" is to make other people angry and have a fight, both digitally and physically. That isn't to say there's anything very acceptable about the way Reform are playing to that, I'm just pointing out that they perhaps have a better handle on what's going on than you do. This is all looking more and more like it's gearing up for big scrap that's violent, damaging, light on facts and ultimately very much against the interests of any of the minorities or other groups it's being done in the name of.

In terms of the lockdowns, I tend to regard the rise of parties like Reform as one of the predictable and predicted consequences of them. Political extremism, economic turmoil and large-scale breakdown of respect along age, class and tribal grounds were pretty high on my list of concerns from day one.

In mainstream politics I'm concerned that the Tories have a better grasp of what's actually happening in sections of the country than Labour and, as a party which has eliminated its sensible wing, may be able to turn more easily it to their benefit. I think we want and need a government which acts credibly, sensibly and respectfully in support of the population at large, but I don't know if we have any shared sense as a nation of what that looks like, and if not then that's something which needs to be built before people will vote for it.

Maybe, but on the other hand if they are a "party which has eliminated its sensible wing", they are unlikely to appeal to the political middle.

I think there is going to be a lot of tactical voting next time.

In terms of a government "which acts credibly, sensibly and respectfully", Labour (and the Lib Dems), to my mind, are acting much more in this fashion than the Tories, right now. Both are what I would class "middle of the road", and I think many just want that right now, after the past few years.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There is quite a lot of unpleasant reactionary extremism in trans activists and "allies". As is quite often the case with antifa and other such organisations, there are people whose primary motivation in being an "ally" is to make other people angry and have a fight, both digitally and physically.

Yes, because:

• Banning drag acts (that have nothing to do with trans issues really but is being used as a dogwhistle) with laws that are so broad and generic that they would also ban panto (and the more extreme ones would essentially ban trans people from existing in public).
• Banning a trans politician from the debating floor (and then trying to block her from doing her work in the building by taking up the benches she was using for no other reason other than to spite her)
• Banning any and all gender affirming care
• Calling trans people and their supporters pedophiles
• "Swatting" trans people and their supporters
• Smashing up crates of beer (causing criminal damage) solely because a trans person was in an ad for the company.
• Literally assaulting and murdering trans people (remember its only a few months since a young trans girl was murdered in this country).
• Etc etc etc

Are all not "unpleasant reactionary extremism" clearly.

That isn't to say there's anything very acceptable about the way Reform are playing to that, I'm just pointing out that they perhaps have a better handle on what's going on than you do.

Is that a joke? They (and the lunatic wing of the Tory party) are very very out of touch.
Most people don't care about trans issues or the culture wars. They just want to carry on with their lives and be able to actually afford food and heating.

 

[najaB]

Most people don't care about trans issues or the culture wars. They just want to carry on with their lives and be able to actually afford food and heating.

I certainly don't know anybody who really cares about trans issues. The closest I can think of is one guy who just wants people to shut up about it, and objects to NHS funding of gender affirming care. But that's consistent as he's of the opinion that the NHS does too much generally.

 

[Broucek]

Most people don't care about trans issues or the culture wars. They just want to carry on with their lives and be able to actually afford food and heating.

Actually a lot of people, particularly women, are quite concerned at the more extreme demands of the trans lobby (relating to safe places and sport) and the antics of hardcore trans activists ("decapitate TERFs").

 

[brad465]

Any bets on how many days after the local elections Mr Harper announces an extension of Firstgroup's TPE contract?

Remember 'a good day to bury bad news' = is any day after the election.

Extension Within the hour 10-1
Extension 1 hour to 3 days 3-1 favourite
Extension 3-days to 3 weeks 17-1
Contract terminated for dishonesty and gross incompetence 1000-1 outsider

This aged well.

 

[MikeWM]

No, he just wants to prevent them supporting political causes he disagrees with.

I don't believe he wants to 'prevent' them, though I'm willing to be proven wrong. He does disagree with them, which is fair enough under free speech.

A company is just a collection of people. Why shouldn’t a company express opinions?

Why *should* it? Maybe some of those people don't agree with the opinions the company expresses. I think it is fair enough if the company is expressing economic opinions that will affect its business, but otherwise they should get on with doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Again, Fox just thinks they shouldn’t express opinions he disagrees with. He doesn’t mind Wetherspoons cheering on Brexit, oddly enough.

Maybe he's changed his mind? Or maybe he's a bit of a hypocrite - I dunno, we probably all are a little bit. Free speech allows that. It also allows you to point that out.

--

I shall agree to disagree - I think you are being extremely generous.

EDIT - but then I am a massive cynic so perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle

Nothing wrong with being a massive cynic!

--

So why has he gone around calling people "paedophiles" when they are not?

And as for the LGBTQ swastika thing, what on earth is that about? It's not the LGBTQ community that's resembled the extreme right over the years.

While I am something of a critic of extended lockdowns myself (due to them likely causing more harm than good) I really wouldn't want all the right-wing baggage that comes with Bridgen or Reclaim and would certainly be calling for a by-election were I to be a North West Leicestershire resident.

To some degree I'd agree that Fox is an attention-seeker - he was an actor, after all. I don't really want to delve into the trans debates in this thread, but on the whole I think the response to this post by @takno sums things up fairly well as I see them.

I'd suspect the people of Bridgen's constituency knew what they were getting when they elected him (with an increased % each time) - he's well known as a hardline ERG Tory. I also suspect that he'd argue, with some merit, that Reclaim's policies are rather closer to what they expected to get from a Boris Johnson government than what they actually got.

 

[najaB]

Why *should* it? Maybe some of those people don't agree with the opinions the company expresses. I think it is fair enough if the company is expressing economic opinions that will affect its business, but otherwise they should get on with doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Because money is, unfortunately, often more powerful an agent change than anything else. A major corporation pulling out of a market or expressing support for/opposition to a cause can come across as virtue signalling, but has proven to be very effective in the past.

 

[MikeWM]

Because money is, unfortunately, often more powerful an agent change than anything else. A major corporation pulling out of a market or expressing support for/opposition to a cause can come across as virtue signalling, but has proven to be very effective in the past.

I'd argue that is part of the reason people don't feel that they can effect change via the ballot box anymore - this may be something that we can't stop from happening, but I don't think we should be encouraging/supporting it.

 

[nw1]

I'd argue that is part of the reason people don't feel that they can effect change via the ballot box anymore - this may be something that we can't stop from happening, but I don't think we should be encouraging/supporting it.

I would argue that the pseudodemocratic first-past-the-post system (which, given the main political split in this country, inherently favours the Tories) is the main reason why many people don't feel that they can effect change via the ballot box anymore!

Precisely why non-Tories absolutely have to play the system and vote tactically in the coming election. (If they'd have done that in Esher last time, Raab would have been out, for example). Then, we push the government to change the system. One of the more likely outcomes (besides small Lab majority) is a Lab-Lib Dem coalition, which could open doors in this area.