why the fuck is it that tv-show writers seem to think a ship can’t be interesting without a lot of break ups and drama like??? no! give me that healthy, long lasting relationship that is always there but not in the center of attention or the main storyline. i totally dig that, burry those nasty love-triangles deep deep down where nobody can find them ever again. please and thank you.
A thought occurred to me when I saw the BBC headline this morning of the Queen and Prince William visiting the area of the Grenfell tower fire. A fire that has left 17 people confirmed dead with 76 missing.
Buckingham Palace: Receives £370m for refurbishment.
Grenfell Tower: Doesn’t receive £300,000 for a sprinkler system.
As pointed out by numerous voices, one example being Aamer Anwar, these people died because they were poor. They continually raised awareness that fire alarms didn’t work and lifts repeatedly stopped.
People who were on the lower floors hurled whatever they could at windows to try and wake people up. They are at outside the incident now wondering whether they should have bothered as they think it would have been better if their neighbours had died from smoke inhalation in their sleep rather than in a panic to escape.
Aamer Anwar, human rights lawyer and current rector of Glasgow University, has said that a government inquiry is not good enough as it allows the government to set the parameters. He pointed out examples like the Hillsborough disaster and Bloody Sunday and how the government continually white washes these to make no one, especially the government, look at fault.
He wants an independent inquiry and a criminal investigation. This happened as a result of Tory austerity and cuts to both social housing and to the emergency services. That blood is on their hands.
When Boris Johnson was mayor of London he oversaw the closures of dozens of fire stations. We had Labour leader to Tony Blair, John McTernan, saying that ‘Only 2% of a fireman’s time is spent fighting fires.’ You cannot afford to cut emergency services to save a quick buck. Austerity does not work.
According to Akala, rapper and poet, rich people living nearby complained that the tower block was an eyesore and urged a refurbishment. This refurbishment results in 'pretty panels’ being placed on the outside, according to Aamer Anwar these panels assisted the fire.
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you’ll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
“Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.”
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
It’s not newsworthy to report that politicians lie. So there should have been no surprise when Theresa May called for the General Election she’d repeatedly said wouldn’t happen until 2020. It’s also nothing new to think politicians have a streak of hypocrisy running through agendas. Again, the Prime Minister came up trumps in this regard.
It seemed reasonable to people south of the Scottish border when the PM denied calls for a second referendum on Scottish Independence. The reason: the country had to come together and focus on getting the best Brexit possible. The SNP pointed out, eighteen months from now, the offer will be clear, so Scotland should have the right to choose at that point.
The problem for the Tories – and the country – is such a move at the final stages of Brexit talks could derail bargaining chips.
It didn’t serve the Conservatives’ best interests to hold another referendum, so they didn’t look to hold one.
Using the same rule of thumb – from a “what’s best for the country” point of view – holding a General Election will be even more detrimental to the Brexit negotiation process. How can the Tories be focused 100% on dealing with Europe when they are fighting for political livelihood back home?
Why should the EU commit fully to a process of negotiation when six months from now a different political party or coalition could be running the UK?
It weakens a hand many already fear will be dismissed on its best day.
We’re living in a time where the Establishment is turning our discontent into political opportunity to further a system that doesn’t serve ordinary people. This disconnect has been felt, and duly voiced with the decision to leave the EU.
Remainers repeatedly claim Brexiteers didn’t know what they were letting themselves in for. They did. Change. Any change was preferred over the status quo. A Remainers greatest fear is the unknown, they’d rather accept a failed system over a fresh start.
What’s worse is when a Leave voter is bundled in with the worse elements of society. The majority are not xenophobes, they just want transparency back in decision making and those in power accountable directly for actions that affect the man on the street.
Not voting Labour is opposite to these ideas. We get zero change. We get a continuing Tory government with the ability to be even more oppressive.
Theresa May called this snap election under the impression she could increase her majority in the House of Commons. Remember how politicians can be hypocrites? Here’s her finest example. Nicola Sturgeon was labelled “opportunistic” and “self-serving” when she saw an opening for a second vote of independence.
May can now wear those two labels with pride.
It’s her attempt to walk through any Brexit deal without a chance of proper debate in the House of Commons. It’s one step to a totalitarian regime, disconnected from the rule maker in the EU and unanswerable to anyone back home for a further five years.
Voting Labour, like Brexit, would be seen as another protest vote. It’s also the most important display of voter apathy and disgruntlement ever. There’s a reason Jeremy Corbyn has been continually attacked in the press. The media and the Establishment don’t waste their time on people unless they are a credible threat.
The people have already spoken. The Labour party members voted in vast numbers for him to lead the opposition. Voting Labour shows MPs in his own party that personal, “self-serving” agendas are the domain of the Tories.
And before someone says, “there’s always the Lib Dems,” let’s recall what happened last time they were near the reins of control. After being seduced by Nick Clegg, a counterproductive coalition formed. This time they’re planning a two-pronged attack of Tim Farron (you’ll be forgiven for missing his relevancy) and Tony Blair. The mandate: overturn Brexit.
They may as well call for the end of night and day. Brexit is happening. The last thing we need in a General Election build-up is the taste of sour grapes and the sound of pleas for the impossible.
If you turn your back on a socialist led Labour party now, you’ll be playing your part in the 1983 that precedes Orwell’s 1984.