Bolitics The New Condem Government

[omariqy]

Apologies if this has been covered already

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/lords-theresa-may-strip-britons-citizenship

 

 

 

'If Theresa May gets her way, she will be able to deprive millions of citizenship, regardless of whether they have committed a crime.' Photograph: Ken Jack/Demotix/Corbis

 

"se of denationalisation as a punishment [means] the total destruction of the individual's status in organised society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture …"

 

So ruled the US supreme court in 1958 on the practice of stripping people of their citizenship and leaving them stateless. It is a measure of how far Britain has sunk in the legal and ethical mire of the "war on terror" that the government is now attempting to introduce powers similar to those rejected by the US courts as "cruel and unusual" more than half a century ago.

 

On Monday, the House of Lords votes on plans that would give Theresa May the power to strip Britons of their citizenship without due process, even if doing so would leave them stateless – deprived of any nationality or the protections it carries.

 

It is a power that, before this government came into office, had been relatively narrow in scope and little-used. Even during the second world war, Oxford academic Matthew Gibeny notes, "only four people were stripped of citizenship." Already, he says, "Theresa May has denaturalised more than four times that number".

But now it appears the home secretary wants to go still further. The measures she is pushing would massively expand the number of Britons vulnerable to being stripped of their citizenship to an estimated three or four million people. This is the approximate number of people who hold a British passport but were not born in the UK. If May gets her way she will be able to deprive them of their citizenship, regardless of whether or not they hold any other nationality or have committed any crime.

 

While the government says it only intends to use the powers on a limited basis, the lack of proper checks or due process should be a major cause for concern. No court process whatsoever is required before the home secretary can remove someone's citizenship. The person in question need not have been charged or tried with any crime at all, let alone convicted. The only test is that May thinks that to take the step would be "conducive to the public good" because the person has conducted themselves "in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom."

 

No definition is provided for such conduct, and so what is there to stop this broad term from encompassing those who, for example, seek to split up the UK, block the renewal of Trident, or take Britain out of the EU? You may agree or disagree with any of those as political views, but surely their proponents should not be eligible under law for the loss of their nationality, simply because the government of the day judges their aims to be at odds with UK interests.

 

Ministers would doubtless respond that they have no intention of rounding up such groups under this legislation. But laws outlast governments, and we cannot afford to be complacent about the benevolence of any future regime when considering whether to allow our political masters unchecked powers such as these.

 

It is worth remembering also that governments and their officials are not infallible. In the event that the information which has led to a decision to remove someone's citizenship is wrong, there is no way to challenge or rectify this. Those who lose their citizenship under these powers will be afforded no chance to challenge the decision beforehand. After the axe has fallen they will theoretically be able to appeal, but only via a highly secretive process which can prevent them from ever seeing the evidence that is being used against them.

 

In short, you will be told that you have done something against the interests of the UK. When you ask what you are supposed to have done, in order that you can give your side of the story, the government will say they cannot tell you for reasons of national security.

 

It is therefore surprising that, when this sweeping, ill-thought-out measure was brought forward, it was on the whole meekly accepted by the Commons, being opposed by just 34 MPs. This may have been in part down to the shameful way that May announced it – believed to be a sop to hardliners on her own backbenches – at the last minute, thereby minimising informed consideration.

 

But the Lords will have no such excuse for exposing millions of Britons to this "punishment more primitive than torture". May's dangerous amendment must itself be stripped out of the bill.

 

Edited March 17, 2014 by omariqy

[TrentVilla]

Well for a start we need to elect a government that listens. 

 

Absolutely….

 

 

If you can't listen you're going to **** things up like this. We need to start from the fundamental, with better politics, more open government, and better democracy. 

 

Indeed, you are on a roll here….. where do I sign up?

 

The only party offering that for me is the Green Party.

 

 

Oh…. oh dear… it was all going so well.

[villaajax]

more money wasted by IDS, good job he knows he is right, and anyone with anything even approaching a different opinion, no matter how many facts back their opinion up is wrong.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/16/dwp-jobs-website-universal-jobsmatch

 

I'm surprised it's taken that long. I had to begin signing on just after the tories took over in 2010 and even then you could see a lot of the jobs weren't legitimate.

 

DWP are a humourless bunch, when signing on you have to write in this diary what you are doing to find work so they say you have to check 3 different sources for jobs, one I chose was the Job Centre website. So I'd have to write "Checked Job Centre website - no suitable jobs found" or whatever. One day I began writing "Checked the Job Centre Website" then went onto the site only to find it was down, so I finished off "Ironically, the website wasn't working". No reaction

[Risso]

 

Well for a start we need to elect a government that listens. 

 

Absolutely….

 

 

If you can't listen you're going to **** things up like this. We need to start from the fundamental, with better politics, more open government, and better democracy. 

 

Indeed, you are on a roll here….. where do I sign up?

 

The only party offering that for me is the Green Party.

 

 

Oh…. oh dear… it was all going so well.

 

 

Yes, anybody expecting the Green Party to "clean up the mess" is going to be more disappointed than a Man U fan watching the Champions League next season.

[bickster]

So in your world, when politicians of all colours going into the next general election, ask people to consider the issues that affect them, then ALL of the politicians, ... are right wing.

You got that bit right, with the possible exceptions of the beast and that awfully nice green lady from the south coast, they are all right wing. The Labour Party ceased being even remotely left wing over two decades ago which is why all the Tory / Labour cat fighting that goes on is so amusing to those of us standing on the edges a watching democracy slowly burn itself out, in fact the closest thing I can associate it with is the old days of the Holte, "The left side", "The right side!", when in fact we were all the same...

[snowychap]

Apologies if this has been covered already

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/lords-theresa-may-strip-britons-citizenship

I don't believe it has so thanks for bringing it to the attention of the thread.

This bit should be particularly noted:

...laws outlast governments, and we cannot afford to be complacent about the benevolence of any future regime when considering whether to allow our political masters unchecked powers such as these.

...that awfully nice green lady from the south coast...

She's from Malvern.

[Kingfisher]

Well for a start we need to elect a government that listens.

Absolutely….

If you can't listen you're going to **** things up like this. We need to start from the fundamental, with better politics, more open government, and better democracy.

Indeed, you are on a roll here….. where do I sign up?

The only party offering that for me is the Green Party.

Oh…. oh dear… it was all going so well.

Yes, anybody expecting the Green Party to "clean up the mess" is going to be more disappointed than a Man U fan watching the Champions League next season.

I think you're quite correct. In the, unfortunately, unlikely event of a Green government, if they failed to 'clean up this mess significantly people would be hugely disappointed.

However if the conservatives were elected, or Labour or the Liberal Democrats or UKIP or any combination of the four, I don't think many would be disappointed. You'd expect them to **** everything up.

[villaajax]

Lucas will probably lose her seat at the next election.

[peterms]

Lucas will probably lose her seat at the next election.

 

Not what the comrades in Brighton think, afaik.

[thetrees]

Lucas will probably lose her seat at the next election.

On the other hand, if she is a good constituency MP, she might not.

I wouldn't vote a Green MP in first time, but if they proved themselves in the constituency, I would likely vote to keep them.

The whole two and a half party national politics is a see-saw of getting us nowhere and nowhere again.

[Kingfisher]

'Have the Greens blown it in Brighton' is the title of the article from 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/15/greens-blown-it-in-brighton

I'm not a Brighton citizen, so I wondered how they were getting on. I'm an admirer of Lucas and her vision of the future of politics.

This article reads to me like, people who have my concerns at heart, having an argument about how best to address them. That has to be a progression from 'let's sell everything he has a stake in and has paid for to our mates as cheaply as possible, whilst diminishing his own personal control of his life'.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Kingfisher

[Kingfisher]

Bloody hippy's...

http://www.cnduk.org/component/k2/item/1855/people-not-trident-the-economic-case-against-trident-replacement

These people who talk about love and peace just don't understand the realities of the world like we the grey, suit wearing, hand gesturing robots for the 'hard working people'.

[MakemineVanilla]

Bloody hippy's...

http://www.cnduk.org/component/k2/item/1855/people-not-trident-the-economic-case-against-trident-replacement

These people who talk about love and peace just don't understand the realities of the world like we the grey, suit wearing, hand gesturing robots for the 'hard working people'.

 

Disagree.

 

If they were concerned about love and peace they would base their argument on the use of nuclear weapons being a crime against humanity, not on the cost.

 

Basing their argument on the cost (presently 0.4% of the UK public spending) appeals to self-interest and actually avoids the serious and important moral issues.

 

They are less than straightforward about how they arrive at their £100bn cost and they assume that people would prefer the government to keep the money to spend rather than return it as a cut in VAT.

[mjmooney]

 

 

Saturday, 15 March 2014

Gove nicked our schools and handed them to his mates

 

Further to the question of 'hey Gove, where have the title deeds of our state schools gone?' there is a post on the Guardian comment is free site, in response to the story about Gove's criticism of Etonians in the cabinet. 

I offer it with no comment. People better informed than me can judge whether it's on the button or not...

Start:

"Since Gove took over - schools all over England failing, free schools being shut down, academy companies being stripped of control of schools

Absolute CHAOS - so why did Gove deliberately create such chaos

Each time a school becomes an academy the council must hand over the title deeds for the school if it has them (avg value £5m per school)

As over 2,000 schools have been forced to become academies that is £10 billion (min) state assets Michael Gove has demanded the title deeds be handed to him

I wrote an FOI request to Michael Gove's department and asked him where are the title deeds to England's schools

After 3 months he still refused to answer - I had to involve the information commissioner who wrote and demanded they answer within 10 days

And now we find out why Michael Gove did not want to answer

the reply I got

The department of Education has absolutely no record of any of the title deeds for the school - not in paper format or electronic format

Now as councils held title deeds for state assets safely for decades - and Michael Gove used the Academies Bill to force councils to hand them to him - the Secretary of State For Education -

Where are all the title deeds for the schools Mr Gove

At the end they told me to write to a company the Tory Party Treasurer is on the board of - and ask the private company if they know what Michael Gove has done with the title deeds for state assets

Any good magician will tell you - create a distraction - to get away with the trick

And the trick here is - Michael Gove transferring £10 billion of state assets to private companies - where no payment was received for the state assets - and taxpayers forced to pay over £50,000,000 in legal fees alone to fund the trick

Thatcher sold state assets - Michael Gove gives them away - and some of the companies he gave them away to - just happen to have very prominent Tory party members on the boards - with us even paying all legal fees

Now I live in Scotland - but if it was my school that became an academy I would be writing to Michael Gove right now - and speaking to my councillors right now and demanding to know where are the title deeds for my school - because these schools are state assets (or they were until Michael Gove disposed of the title deeds with absolutely not a thing on record in the Dof E)

that's what you call magic

Now the reality is Michael Gove has set up Southern Cross For Education - where

Academy companies have the title deeds for schools - they can sell them - and then sign extortionate leases to rent them (and the money goes offshore to the Cayman Islands as "excess funds")

Now Gove changed the law to say Academy's don't have to publish their accounts publicly - unlike every other charity in the country

And Gove changed the law to say No Academy trustee can be held liable for any losses

And Gove is currently trying to change the Academies bill to say instead of the title deeds going to " the proprietor of the school" - to "someone associated with the school"

Now does that mean the Tory Party Treasurer, instead of putting your school's title deeds in Ark Schools name - he can instead put your school's title deeds in the Tory Party Treasurer's name

Now if that is not "cronyism" of the most absolutely shocking sort - I don't know what is

Serious investigations need to be asked as to how Michael Gove can have "lost" the title deeds for £10 billion of state assets without a trace - after councils kept them safe for decades!"

End

Michael Rosen's blog

Edited March 18, 2014 by mjmooney

[colhint]

I have to say that seems a ridiculous valuation. £5m per school. I'm sure you might get close to that in London, but I have just checked my daughters school in Yorkshire, a rough guess on the size and got land costs of land registry, but its a 2000 kid school and you could buy that land for less than £1m

[chrisp65]

£5M / £1M / £27.50

 

it's more about the principle surely?

[colhint]

probably right there, but I tend to doubt some of the other stuff when I see such glaring errors. It makes me think what else is made up.

[chrisp65]

yeah, fair point

[snowychap]

The FOI requests and responses can be read here.

Edit:

ARK's accounts list the following additions (total value £45,854,000) to their fixed assets in the FY 12/13:

• Isaac Newton Acadamy £31,182,000
• ARK King's Academy £5,365,000
• ARK Rose Primary Academy £1,001,000
• ARK Tindal Primary Academy £1,560,000
• ARK Putney Academy £5,729,000
• ARK Bentworth Primary Academy £1,017,000

Edited March 18, 2014 by snowychap

[mockingbird_franklin]

Bank of England finally comes clean about how banking really works. destroys the lie that is usually peddled

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity