George Monbiot

ACS

Registered
Interesting article from him in regard to the Covid crisis

Here's an excert in regards to racing and Dido Harding

In 2014 David Cameron, an old friend, made her a baroness; she sits in the House of Lords as a Conservative peer.

It would be wrong to claim she had no experience relevant to the pandemic. She sits on the board of the Jockey Club, which runs some of the biggest and most lucrative horse racing events in the UK. Among them is the Cheltenham Festival. By 10 March, it was clear that Covid-19 was a massive problem. Public health experts were frantically urging the government to take action. The epidemiology professor Neil Ferguson estimated that 20,000 lives would have been saved if the government had locked down a week earlier than it did. Many events had already been cancelled, for fear of spreading the disease.

Then we watched aghast as the Cheltenham Festival went ahead, and 250,000 people packed the terraces “like sardines”. It appears to have been a super-spreader event, blamed by some for a spike in infections and deaths.

The racing connection might not have commended her to doctors, but could it have commended her to the health secretary, Matt Hancock? For a long time Hancock, the MP for Newmarket, where the Jockey Club has major infrastructure and investments, has drawn a large proportion of his political funding from the horse-racing industry. An investigation by the Mirror estimates that he has received £350,000 in donations from wealthy people in the racing business. Before the last election he announced: “I’ll always support the wonderful sport of horse racing.”

Harding’s appointment is not the only intersection between racing and tracing. The Jockey Club’s premier annual event is the Grand National. Or, to give it its full title, the Randox Health Grand National. One of the government’s most controversial contracts is with Randox. It gave the global healthcare firm a £133m deal, without advertisement or competition, to supply testing kits.

Randox employs as a consultant the former Conservative environment secretary Owen Paterson. It pays him £100,000 a year for 200 hours of work. Neither he, nor Randox, nor the health department answered the Guardian’s questions about whether he had helped to secure this deal. In July, following a series of errors, the government withdrew Randox testing kits, on the grounds that they might be unsafe.

These apparent connections may be entirely coincidental. But in an emergency, when decisions must be made with the utmost rigour and a relentless focus on public health, there should be no possibility that other interests might intrude, or that ministerial judgment should in any way be clouded.

Like so much surrounding this pandemic, the identity of Harding’s team at NHS track and trace was withheld from the public, until it was leaked to the Health Service Journal last month. Clinicians were astonished to discover that there is only one public health expert on its executive committee. There is space, however, for a former executive from Jaguar Land Rover, a senior manager from Travelex and an executive from Waitrose. Harding’s adviser at the agency is Alex Birtles, who, like her, previously worked for TalkTalk. She has subsequently made a further appointment to the board: Mike Coupe, an executive at another of her old firms, Sainsbury’s.

The “world-beating” test-and-trace system she oversees has repeatedly failed to reach its targets. Staff were scarcely trained. Patients have been directed to nonexistent testing centres, or to the other end of the country. A vast tranche of test results was lost. Thousands of people, including NHS staff, have been left in limbo, unable to work because they can’t get tests or the results of tests.

Having demonstrated, to almost everyone’s dissatisfaction, that she was the wrong person for the job, Harding has now been given an even bigger role, as head of the National Institute for Health Protection, to run concurrently with the first one. This is the government’s replacement for Public Health England, which it blames for its own disasters. Harding’s appointment looks to me like a reward for failure.

You can read the full on article on the Guardian website or type and search George Monbiot on Facebook
 
Interesting article from him in regard to the Covid crisis

Here's an excert in regards to racing and Dido Harding

In 2014 David Cameron, an old friend, made her a baroness; she sits in the House of Lords as a Conservative peer.

It would be wrong to claim she had no experience relevant to the pandemic. She sits on the board of the Jockey Club, which runs some of the biggest and most lucrative horse racing events in the UK. Among them is the Cheltenham Festival. By 10 March, it was clear that Covid-19 was a massive problem. Public health experts were frantically urging the government to take action. The epidemiology professor Neil Ferguson estimated that 20,000 lives would have been saved if the government had locked down a week earlier than it did. Many events had already been cancelled, for fear of spreading the disease.

Then we watched aghast as the Cheltenham Festival went ahead, and 250,000 people packed the terraces “like sardines”. It appears to have been a super-spreader event, blamed by some for a spike in infections and deaths.

The racing connection might not have commended her to doctors, but could it have commended her to the health secretary, Matt Hancock? For a long time Hancock, the MP for Newmarket, where the Jockey Club has major infrastructure and investments, has drawn a large proportion of his political funding from the horse-racing industry. An investigation by the Mirror estimates that he has received £350,000 in donations from wealthy people in the racing business. Before the last election he announced: “I’ll always support the wonderful sport of horse racing.”

Harding’s appointment is not the only intersection between racing and tracing. The Jockey Club’s premier annual event is the Grand National. Or, to give it its full title, the Randox Health Grand National. One of the government’s most controversial contracts is with Randox. It gave the global healthcare firm a £133m deal, without advertisement or competition, to supply testing kits.

Randox employs as a consultant the former Conservative environment secretary Owen Paterson. It pays him £100,000 a year for 200 hours of work. Neither he, nor Randox, nor the health department answered the Guardian’s questions about whether he had helped to secure this deal. In July, following a series of errors, the government withdrew Randox testing kits, on the grounds that they might be unsafe.

These apparent connections may be entirely coincidental. But in an emergency, when decisions must be made with the utmost rigour and a relentless focus on public health, there should be no possibility that other interests might intrude, or that ministerial judgment should in any way be clouded.

Like so much surrounding this pandemic, the identity of Harding’s team at NHS track and trace was withheld from the public, until it was leaked to the Health Service Journal last month. Clinicians were astonished to discover that there is only one public health expert on its executive committee. There is space, however, for a former executive from Jaguar Land Rover, a senior manager from Travelex and an executive from Waitrose. Harding’s adviser at the agency is Alex Birtles, who, like her, previously worked for TalkTalk. She has subsequently made a further appointment to the board: Mike Coupe, an executive at another of her old firms, Sainsbury’s.

The “world-beating” test-and-trace system she oversees has repeatedly failed to reach its targets. Staff were scarcely trained. Patients have been directed to nonexistent testing centres, or to the other end of the country. A vast tranche of test results was lost. Thousands of people, including NHS staff, have been left in limbo, unable to work because they can’t get tests or the results of tests.

Having demonstrated, to almost everyone’s dissatisfaction, that she was the wrong person for the job, Harding has now been given an even bigger role, as head of the National Institute for Health Protection, to run concurrently with the first one. This is the government’s replacement for Public Health England, which it blames for its own disasters. Harding’s appointment looks to me like a reward for failure.

You can read the full on article on the Guardian website or type and search George Monbiot on Facebook
Them pesky Marxists!
 
I like the Guardian it gives fake news a new meaning, propaganda for soft liberals who need a cause to protest about.
 
I like the Guardian it gives fake news a new meaning, propaganda for soft liberals who need a cause to protest about.
It is the 'house' publication of champagne socialists and the BBC.

Like many of it's readers, it's earnings are hidden in tax havens in the Caribbean.
 
What's a 'champagne socialist' and how can they stop being one?
You know exactly what a 'champagne socialist' is.

Pretend socialists who are living a life of wealth and privilege and have no interest in allowing real socialism of any kind into their life.

Let me ask you a question, do you have an income of more than £84 per week?
 
You haven’t answered the question of how someone with money could stop being a champagne socialist.

Where does it say that socialists aren’t allowed to make money?

Yes I earn more than £84 a week, why?
 
You haven’t answered the question of how someone with money could stop being a champagne socialist.

Where does it say that socialists aren’t allowed to make money?

Yes I earn more than £84 a week, why?
Capitalists can't get their heads around someone gaining wealth without being a wrong un because that's how most capitalists have gained their wealth. Be it having a talent or working hard whilst still not exploiting folk is alien to them hence they have to label anyone who cares about those less fortunate whilst earning good money and enjoying their life.
 
Capitalists can't get their heads around someone gaining wealth without being a wrong un because that's how most capitalists have gained their wealth. Be it having a talent or working hard whilst still not exploiting folk is alien to them hence they have to label anyone who cares about those less fortunate whilst earning good money and enjoying their life.
That is nonsense, sorry.

Capitalism works because it believes in the concept that wealth can be 'created'.

Man has money, risks his money by setting up a business in which people with skills but no money can work and earn a living. Together they produce a product that they can sell, the profit pays the wages of the employees and the surplus goes to the owner. The owner may use some of the profit to grow the business and of course some for himself. Simple.

A socialist system assumes that in any transaction there is a winner and a loser. They balance out so that it is a nill sum transaction. One person profits, one person loses, nothing of any worth is created.

Look at the last century, it is self evident.
 
That is nonsense, sorry.

Capitalism works because it believes in the concept that wealth can be 'created'.

Man has money, risks his money by setting up a business in which people with skills but no money can work and earn a living. Together they produce a product that they can sell, the profit pays the wages of the employees and the surplus goes to the owner. The owner may use some of the profit to grow the business and of course some for himself. Simple.

A socialist system assumes that in any transaction there is a winner and a loser. They balance out so that it is a nill sum transaction. One person profits, one person loses, nothing of any worth is created.

Look at the last century, it is self evident.
That is nonsense, sorry.

Capitalism works because it believes in the concept that wealth can be 'created'.

Man has money, risks his money by setting up a business in which people with skills but no money can work and earn a living. Together they produce a product that they can sell, the profit pays the wages of the employees and the surplus goes to the owner. The owner may use some of the profit to grow the business and of course some for himself. Simple.

A socialist system assumes that in any transaction there is a winner and a loser. They balance out so that it is a nill sum transaction. One person profits, one person loses, nothing of any worth is created.

Look at the last century, it is self evident.
I love the idea that wealth is created like it's a magical force. Wealth is gained by the toil of others. Either ethically or unethically.
That's the bottom line.
 
I love the idea that wealth is created like it's a magical force. Wealth is gained by the toil of others. Either ethically or unethically.
That's the bottom line.
Wealth, in this instance is a measure of output, the more desirable it is, there people will pay and the more 'wealth' is created.
It may be a concept but it works, capitalism may not be perfect but, left to it's own devices it has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else.

State controlled capitalism is an abomination, a sound money and a fair justice system is all that is needed from the government, the rest is just trimmings.
 
Wealth, in this instance is a measure of output, the more desirable it is, there people will pay and the more 'wealth' is created.
It may be a concept but it works, capitalism may not be perfect but, left to it's own devices it has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else.

State controlled capitalism is an abomination, a sound money and a fair justice system is all that is needed from the government, the rest is just trimmings.
The same argument can be said that capitalism has kept more people in poverty...
 
The same argument can be said that capitalism has kept more people in poverty...
No it can't. You can try and justify that if you wish.


Edit. Actually don't. We end up arguing semantics and political dogma.

Gets very boring very quickly.

At the end of the day, you are a socialist, I am a Nazi. Should we ever meet at the bar I'll buy the beers.
 
Last edited:
The simple answer was above, yes I do and what has that to do with 'champagne socialists'?
Apologies, I actually missed your earlier post.

My weekly income is just £84 per week. In a fair society you should give me some of your 'surplus' so that I can live at the same standard. Perhaps even afford the odd glass of champagne... (y)

Equality of outcome.
 
Apologies, I actually missed your earlier post.

My weekly income is just £84 per week. In a fair society you should give me some of your 'surplus' so that I can live at the same standard. Perhaps even afford the odd glass of champagne... (y)

Equality of outcome.
Would you then become a champagne socialist?
 
Apologies, I actually missed your earlier post.

My weekly income is just £84 per week. In a fair society you should give me some of your 'surplus' so that I can live at the same standard. Perhaps even afford the odd glass of champagne... (y)

Equality of outcome.
What a ridiculous statement, nowhere ub=nder socialism does it say equality of pay.
You may be mixing up real socialism with some kind of extreme 1984 version of communism.
 
Equal pay is a big topic in current thinking on the left, whether it is in the context of gender or race or any other fake distinction derived from intersectionalism.

Why shouldn't I get the same income/pension as you?
 
People doing equal jobs (just as well) should receive equal pay.
You've clearly not done the same job as me or put as much into your pension scheme.

Not sure how you're on £84 a week, that's not a pension so I assume you're unemployed.

You're just being ridiculous now.
 
That is the basic state pension to which I am entitled (actually it is £86.65, this years interest must have passed me by).

I have much the same needs as any other retired person, why should I not get the same as, for example, you?
 
Back
Top