Thursday, 12 June 2014

What do you call a government who....

If this article makes you think, please don't close it without using the buttons at the end to tweet it, share it and send it to your friends. This has been a scream inside my head for months now. 

What do you call a government who's first act is to make it virtually impossible to remove them from power, no matter how badly they perform?

What do you call a government who use the media and their own departmental outlets to run a partisan propaganda campaign against vulnerable groups? Who ensure that lies are printed, policies are not criticised, information requests are not granted and statistics are misrepresented?

What do you call a government who overturn laws retrospectively to make court rulings against them obsolete?

What do you call a government who erodes justice by ensuring the least able to defend themselves can no longer access it? Or who remove the right for ordinary people or organisations to take them to court? Or who limit the right to appeal decisions?

What do you call a government who introduce a gagging bill making it virtually impossible for third parties to oppose them through democratic channels? Who threaten charities and our independent national news service for covering important stories in the national interest?

What do you call a government that ignores the advice of it's second chamber entirely, effectively neutering it from providing the checks and balances true democracies demand?

What do you call a government who ignores court rulings not once but repeatedly that find their policies discriminate but ignore that ruling? Or who whitewash consultations and entirely falsify their results - or ignore them completely?

What do you call a government who tries to scrap the human rights act and buy your employment rights from you?

What do you call a government who send misleading and partial reports to our world partners on what effects their policies are having on its citizens?

What do you call a government who restrict education for disabled people and books for those in prisons? Who design our children's education based on personal whims and construct a syllabus that matches their own world view?

Reports today show that Trussell Trust, the charity responsible for the largest network of food banks in the UK modified their campaigning after threats that the government might get them shut down if they continued to make links between government policies such as welfare reform and the rise in food banks.

This following a week that saw Oxfam criticised by a Conservative MP for highlighting growing poverty not abroad, but here in the UK.

I have proof from FOI requests that Chris Grayling, that the then Work and Pensions Secretary asked civil servants repeatedly about closing down my own blog.

If you read this today, RT it, share it and ask everyone you send it to to ask themselves exactly what the actual definition is of a government who behaves like this? And I only scratched the surface. 


  1. As you state in concluding you've only "scratched the surface" of the extent and range of injustices the current Government has and continues to employ against its people.

    Given this I'm amazed at the lack of outrage and anger from the majority of the people as they sleepwalk their way into serfdom.

    What can we do - keep on fighting the only way we can talk, write, blog, sign petitions, join campaigns but...Let's Do It Together.

  2. Hate to quibble but the boundary changes are not entirely as cut and dried as you depict them.

    The distribution of seats is absurdly non-proportional: The Tories got 36% of the votes but 47% of seats, Labour 29% of the vote but 39% of seats and Lib Dems (spit) 23% of the vote but only 8% of seats.

    While it takes 35,000 voters to elect a Tory MP it takes only 33,000 to elect a Labour one and 119,000 to elect a Lib Dem (spit again).

    The great British electorate were given the opportunity to vote for a somewhat more proportional system which however imperfect would have opened the way to further reforms - but resoundingly rejected it.

    So a boundary change is not in itself unreasonable and even on the old criterion there would have been some redistribution of seats from Labour-dominated cities to Tory-dominated shires and suburbs.

    Reducing the number of MPs was another issue and made that redistribution had it been implemented (and if the Tories win it presumably still will be) much more radical in its effects - but still did not depart from the basic principles that have governed British boundary changes since the 19th century.

    And the new boundaries themselves were not gerrymandered in the American sense: the Boundary Commission is a non-partisan body and was applying criteria which however much they would disadvantage Labour and benefit the Tories would do so for reasons which are unfortunately quite rational.

    In the end any boundary review under the long-established British system will benefit the Tories simply because far, far too many English electors vote for them.

    So as Brecht put it maybe we need to elect a new people....

    1. Damn - that should have been old criteria....

    2. Roger, One of the ways this government (or any authoritarian control freak) gets away with illogical, self contradictory and cruel policies is to focus on detail when questioned. They have very good excuses why 'helping the disabled back into work' is a positive and laudable motive, they can talk for hours about the 'good' surveillance cameras do, they can wax lyrical about the financial benefits of outsourcing NHS services and they can distract from pertinent issues by referring to some apparently harmless policies. But you have to stand back and look at the bigger picture. What is the underlying philosophy and the overall consequences. This is why so much in politics is so hard to deal with. I want you to think on this because I am sure your intentions are good ... but so were those of Judas. It is myopic to raise the minutiae in this context.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. I call them the nazi party...

  5. David Cameron said his Government would be the most transparent ever, I think what he meant was that he would be the most transparent ever because we all can see right through him as what he is doing is bringing in policies that cover his wrongdoing in order to appease the world stage

  6. I saw this coming during Tony Blair's little jaunt in office. The then Secretary of state tried to have my N-Gage fanboy site shut down. Why?

    Because I have recordings of Terry Moran and other Senior DWP officials declaring that they know they have to carry out supersessions on existing awards of benefits, and it would be unlawful to do so, but they have no intention of every instructing that they be carried out.

    Excluding 100's of 1000's at the time from their rightful award of Disability Living Allowance.

    A subject access request shows that they tried to get a 'D Notice' to silence me. I guess that was their answer when the attempted assassination did not work

    Interestingly enough the same Right of Supersession issue has come to the fore concerning claimants migrated from IB and IS to ESA, they have not been superseding the existing award, which is in err of law. Meaning claimants have remained entitled to their existing award of benefit for all this time.

    1. (correcting typo) 'would be unlawful 'not' to do so'

  7. I am praying that Scotland gets lucky and gains Independence as I have huge fears about what will happen if the tories get in again, especially if Ukip join them.
    But you also have to have a go at the people Sue, as they have sat back and let this happen - they all belong to the "I'm alright Jack" brigade, even if they too are suffering.
    We have many thousands of people trying to fight but we need the others on our sides.
    As for the government trying to stop people and charities from saying what they want, just exactly would the government be able to do if everyone of the charities, and the people, just ignored him and said what they wanted to?
    I am against all kinds of violence but I truly believe that something is brewing and I don't want any kind of general strike, or any kind of uprising become violent. The government too are expecting it, I would go so far as to say that they want it - that's why Boris has ordered the cannons without any permission from May - (or has he had the permission already?), we never know with this gang of lying and thieving scum that is tory!

  8. Changes get through because they're done slowly so people don't notice. I call this government what people have been asking for, by not taking notice, not making the effort to understand, and most importantly, by not voting.

  9. Benefit Scroungers create wealth in the same way immigrants do

  10. Imigrants demand stuff.

    Demand creates work.

    Work creates jobs.

    Jobs create wages.

    Wages create tax revenue.

    Immigrants creates Wealth.

  11. you cant shut a private food bank down you can take away the charity status of a food bank if it gives away dangerous food but being mainly tinned you would be hard pressed to shut it down which would have to be made public with the reason given for the closure and also to highlight the additional safeguards that you then need to replace it

    the country is getting just like Saudi Arabia in which for the majority of the people everything is ok but when you dig deep their are all sorts of deaths taking place along with missing children and so on down in the sick and disabled / unemployed areas of the country

    like Saudi Arabia the conservatives also believe in a very small state they believe also in a sink or swim only society

    this is why nick clegg wants us to stay in the EU to safeguard the poorer people of the uk like the sick and disabled and it's a pity he did not choose my words for staying in the EU but jobs etc albeit that is important but saving the lives of the sick and disable is even more important

    had he stuck to my line of thought then the liberals would be sitting a lot prettier then they are today at the bottom of the heap

  12. They have co opted the vast majority of the Media, the BBC's censorship of all opposition to the NHS Privatisation Bill, and their lack of integrity or anything resembling investigative journalism has played a major part in the Tory Blitzkrieg upon our NHS and Social Security system... Many of us have faced ridicule and have been banned from Labour related FB Sites for raising the spectre... When objective scrutiny would raise alarming concerns - Thank you Sue for all your work, and thank you too to your extremely supportive family.

  13. "What do you call a government who overturn laws retrospectively to make court rulings against them obsolete?"

    Labour twice did this in relation to DLA rulings; once with regard to whether care could be provided over the phone (Commissioner said yes, govt changed the law to say no) and again re anxiety and need for guidance for low rate mobility.

  14. Thank you very much for this, Sue. This Government isn't 'fascist' in the strict sense, but it is dangerously close to being fascist in all too many ways. It is certainly reactionary, uncaring, elitist, illiberal, authoritarian & hell-bent on destroying our Welfare State. The problem is that Labour aren't sufficiently different: they, too, when in office, were illiberal & authoritarian; they pursued a foreign policy that was slavishly sycophantic to the US; they were responsible for introducing ESA and hiring Atos; & are committed, as the Tories are, to further cuts in public spending & a cap on 'welfare'. So what the hell will be the point in voting for them, especially if they decide to spend billions on Trident? Why vote for Labour personnel & Tory policies? Labour will have to change their policies back to Labour ones if they expect the likes of me to vote for them.

    1. 100% with you on your last sentence.

  15. The answer is authoritarian. The writing was on the wall in 2012 when the government hammered through the welfare 'reforms' despite widespread opposition using 'financial privilege' to shut down debate. They KNEW that it the most vulnerable would suffer. Then came the health and social care bill, the legal aid bill to silence the victims and hide the evidence of oppressive policies. This is a calculated, well-planned and coordinated attack on our rights, our sense of worth as human beings, our public funds and institutions and on civil society.

  16. I'd call such a government typical. I'm not a fan of the whole idea I'm afraid.

  17. The government has now become the enemy of the people. I hate to think what will happen once all of us have grasped this fact....

  18. I agree whole-heartily with Richard Blaber's last statement.
    I'm ex labour councillor, ex labour party founder secretary - dropped away in 1992 when 'old' labour was totally destroyed by 'new' labour, toriies in disguise.

  19. Agree with kittyjones, this isn't a democracy its a dictatorship, 1930 Germany hoodwinked its populas into believing other minority groups were responsible for a decline only later did they find out what had been carried out in their name by their government. It is a lesson never to be repeated ever however the similarities of this government towards its people is there for even a blind man to see. Thankfully they have not rounded us up and into death camps yet. Many have died as a result of their policies and that is inexcusable. Many in this country are as culpable as those implementing it by not standing up and saying 'NO' this isn't acceptable way to treat our fellow human beings they lack compassion and care and are utterly selfish whom only care about themselves and family . Well one day when all this is done they may well find families are affected too are no longer getting what they paid into either just like rest of us.

    1. There is no answer to it. Greed trumps everything sadly, and those who have, don't care, and those who don't have, want just to survive. That drives the economy, even in a disharmonious way, but it works, in the same way a maggot feeds off a corpse. It is vile and ugly, but a nasty reality of life. Not all of us are self centred or greedy or lacking in compassion for others, but sufficient are they in numbers, especially in seats of power and those with wealth, to have influence in the way things are run and the way things are. I feel that the 1930s comparisons are chillingly too close for comfort as I feel, yet again, we are heading for some kind of global crisis or even a spiral into a world conflict again. This time the powers that be won't be able to control or manipulate events. It may truly be too big for anyone to control, with perhaps dreadful consequences. I truly hope not, but if huge swathes of Western Europe feel that they are going to end up like the underclass of America and most of the rest of the world, I highly doubt that they will take that lightly.

      '9 People who long to be rich are a prey to trial; they get trapped into all sorts of foolish and harmful ambitions which plunge people into ruin and destruction.

      10 'The love of money is the root of all evils' and there are some who, pursuing it, have wandered away from the faith and so given their souls any number of fatal wounds.' (1 Timothy - Chapter 6:9-10 NJB)

      '15 Then all the kings of the earth, the governors and the commanders, the rich people and the men of influence, the whole population, slaves and citizens, hid in caverns and among the rocks of the mountains.

      16 They said to the mountains and the rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us away from the One who sits on the throne and from the retribution of the Lamb.

      17 For the Great Day of his retribution has come, and who can face it?'' (Revelation - Chapter 6:15-17 NJB)

  20. blueannoyed you speak for the whole country

  21. There seems to be an increase in Spammy comments Sue either a sign of broader circulation or an attack by those whom you may have upset.

    Splendid article keep up the good work.