Gransnet forums

News & politics

Government watch

(209 Posts)
Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-Sep-19 07:15:37

Given the fact that our democratic ability to ask urgent questions in parliament has been stripped from us, I think notice should at the very least be made of those issues that are popping up and for which the government does not have to answer.

The first

Tom Watson
@tom_watson

Given Cummings' focus on data science in the Vote Leave campaign the sudden urgent need for big data collection is extremely concerning. We need immediate clarity about how citizens' data will be protected and won’t be misused for party political purposes.

Grandad1943 Thu 26-Sep-19 20:46:32

Whitewavemark2, many thanks for posting the second page of that letter. Together with the letter sent by Richard Burnett of the Road Haulage Association, It will be interesting to see if any meaningful response is received by either

Not holding my breath in that regard.

varian Thu 26-Sep-19 20:25:21

Gove, like Rees Mogg, maintains a veneer of politeness which cannot disguise his blatant dishonesty.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 26-Sep-19 17:15:02

Grandad I think I missed the second page 😫

pbs.twimg.com/media/EFYJmXtX4AAe4oc.jpg

Grandad1943 Thu 26-Sep-19 17:11:04

Whiewavemk2, Michael Gove misled the House of Commons by far more than your above post lays out. Gove informed Parliament that British Hauliers would not be affected greatly should Britain withdraw from the European Union on the 31st of October with no-deal.

Britain he stated would place no checks on vehicles leaving the UK via the Channel ports or tunnel, therefore no delays would be incurred to those vehicles by way of British Border personal. However, he then went on to state that as those vehicles return "empty" from their European deliveries they would be "waved through" at the channel ports and tunnel by EU border personal.

In the above, nothing could be further from the true facts. Hauliers only gain revenue from their vehicles when they are in the process of actually transporting freight. No one pays those distribution operators for running "empty mileage" and therefore that running is strictly avoided in the road haulage industry. If a haulier cannot guarantee a return load from an EU country they will most definitely not undertake a journey into the continent whatever the revenue rates they may be offered.

Therefore Michael Gove must have been totally ignorant of the above when he made that statement to parliament, in which case he had not undertaken the required consultation with the industry, or he had full knowledge of the haulage industries normal mode of operation, in which case he deliberately misled the House of Commons.

More than sixty percent of my companies work is brought about by our close working with the haulage industry. In that, supply companies such as ours and the entire haulage industry itself have been stunned by what Gove stated to parliament yesterday. Joking emails have been "doing the rounds" in regard to the stupidity of Gove's remarks.

However, on the serious side, hundreds of thousands of jobs rely on those haulage industry vehicles having seamless transit through the ports without delays. It should also be remembered that more than forty percent of the United Kingdoms fresh food crosses the channel every day in those returning trucks.

Gove's action in his statement to Parliament is nothing short of disgusting either in his negligence or in his deliberate misleading of the House of Commons.

Richard Burnett the Chief Executive the Road Haulage Association has I believe urgently written to Gove with regard to what has been stated.

With government ministers such as Michael Gove, this crisis can only deepen further I feel.

Eloethan Thu 26-Sep-19 17:00:03

"Misleding* is a very polite way of putting it.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 26-Sep-19 13:59:25

Kier Starmer letter to Gove saying he misled parliament.

pbs.twimg.com/media/EFYJmXtXUAEBhMs.jpg

M0nica Tue 24-Sep-19 15:17:14

I find all this accusing people of being actively malign and making laws to crush other people to make money is silly. Of course there are some nasty operators at all levels and in all parties, but often what happens, as I think with Grenfell Towers are that safety regulations ar made piecemeal by different groups for different uses.

Obviously we will not know until the enquiry reports, but the kind of thing that seems to happen is that one body clears a material as meeting flamability standards, or meets them for certain narrow uses, someone else comes along sees the relevant safety stamp on the product, but then uses it in a way it was never meant to be used and which negates the flammability standard. The same with breached voids in the structure. A block of flats (any block of flats) is designed to be fire safe but a few years later someone decides to replace the plumbing systems and builders go in and drill holes in all the barriers meant to stop flame spreading to get new plumbing from floor to floor.

Councils and companies - and governments, cut back on inspections because so few problems are found, failing to realise that problems hadn't arisen because things were inspected regularly.

Anniel Tue 24-Sep-19 11:47:49

Now I would be in agreement with,anyone who wants a general election. I am a Conservative who voted leave with a new determination to live given the scandalous statement by John Snow that leave voters , being old, would soon die. If he bothered to look at social trends people in middle age often stop voting for socialism. I really wish Mr Snow would retire. We need a general election that both Labour and Lib Dems shy away from.

Grandad1943 Tue 24-Sep-19 09:26:07

Whitewavemark2, great post above.
😂👍👍👍

Whitewavemark2 Tue 24-Sep-19 08:51:10

Leadsom on #r4today on the #Arcuri scandal: “The PM has said he’s acted with propriety and I’m happy with that.” The energy generated by her squirming could reduce our carbon debt significantly. Mishal Husain is hammering her.

Whitewavemark2 Tue 24-Sep-19 08:01:37

Johnson is refusing to rule out a second prorogation should the Supreme Court go against him.

I wonder if the Queen will have something to say about that?

Whitewavemark2 Tue 24-Sep-19 07:45:55

The disgraced former foreign secretary Fox was disgrace for a similar misuse of public money.

Whitewavemark2 Tue 24-Sep-19 07:44:29

Johnson still has questions to answer over the £126000 given to his “friend”. Jennifer Arcuri.

He has been photographed with her over a number of years.

Whitewavemark2 Mon 23-Sep-19 16:56:53

MajorMajor

Nothing to see here. Just more evidence (were any needed) that this is the most corrupt UK government ever. Hardly surprising given that its members were formally of VoteLeave, who ran the most dishonest campaign in British electoral history!

Whitewavemark2 Mon 23-Sep-19 15:37:54

Oh silly me I forgot.

Parliament can’t it is prorogued

Whitewavemark2 Mon 23-Sep-19 15:37:06

Johnson has told Trump that the U.K. will join the US in military action against Iran.

Won’t Parliament demand some say in that?

GracesGranMK3 Mon 23-Sep-19 10:39:40

I'm very much afraid that a man is known by the company he keeps. If you vote for the Tories then you are voting for people who have pushed children, in great numbers, to be brought up in poverty. The same people have reduced services, a known side effect of which has been deaths, people living in appalling circumstances and hard working families having to choose between food and warmth.

I know it seems harsh janipat but getting rid of safety standards puts people at risk and both voters and the current government know that. It is a choice. We all have to size up the good and the not so good when voting but if you vote for a party knowing they will extend poverty and cut safety then you are painted with the same brush. Voting for them means you either didn't know or didn't care and I think it is not unreasonable to call out Tory supporters for either of those positions.

Grandad1943 Mon 23-Sep-19 10:21:23

David Cameron during the 2014 General Election campaign stated he wished to see ALL industrial safety regulations withdrawn in favour of self-regulation by companies.

That policy had started to take effect at the time of the Grenfell Tower disaster and from what little has come out of the enquiry so far very much contributed to it.

Now once again we have the Tory Party voicing deregulation in industrial safety. So, i state again, how many Grenfell Tower disaster do the Tories and their supporters wish to see before they are satisfied or convinced of the need for such regulations?

And I make no apology in stating that having worked in industrial safety for over thirty-five years and all to often seen the results of employers and employees not following the regulations as they are laid out at present.

janipat Mon 23-Sep-19 10:07:39

whitewavemark2 As I said, I don't support the Tories, but as only 2 people have said grandad's comment was disgusting it was upsetting to be implicated in your comment I am glad those shouting “disgusting” are not in the position to decide these things, our future would be indeed blighted. I'd never compromise on safety standards, but agree there are those who will always put profit first and just hope for no repercussions .

Whitewavemark2 Mon 23-Sep-19 09:46:57

Not the general public supporters janipat

But frankly the billionaire supports like Odey worry more about profit than safety or the environment.

janipat Mon 23-Sep-19 09:46:09

sorry, the italics part to show the quote went wrong, but I think it's still clear.

janipat Mon 23-Sep-19 09:43:52

I do not agree with lowering of safety standards but grandad's comment said ^I wonder how many more Grenfell Tower disasters the Tories and their supporters wish to see before they are satisfied which definitely suggests they actively want such events. Of course lowering of safety standards is wrong, and would increase the chances of further disasters, and that should be voiced loud and clear, that is not disgusting. Saying there are people who actually want them is. Do you really believe their supporters want disasters?

Whitewavemark2 Mon 23-Sep-19 09:28:16

eleothan

Indeed

Eloethan Mon 23-Sep-19 08:43:30

Reducing health and safety and other regulatory measures is bound to increase the risk of tragedies such as Grenfell. I can't imagine why it is thought "disgusting" to point this out. It is not being suggested that this government is responsible for Grenfell but if it pushes for a reduction in regulatory safety measures it demonstrates quite clearly its prioritisation of the demands of commercial interests over the future health and safety of the general population.

Having a regulatory structure is not in itself enough. That structure has to be fit for purpose and it has to be not just something put down on paper but something applied. All governments should ensure whatever health and safety measures are on statute are actually put into practice and properly monitored.

Whitewavemark2 Mon 23-Sep-19 06:57:21

grandad I’m afraid your comment concerning Grenfell, is exactly what those ex-Grenfell residents argued happened.

Lack of regulation caused a human catastrophe. You see incidences all over the world especially in countries that have low or no regulation.

Lowering regulatory standards in the UK for profit, will of course end in the same result. How can it be otherwise?

I am glad those shouting “disgusting” are not in the position to decide these things, our future would be indeed blighted.