So much for “we’re making sure government stays out of your life”!
Not two days after Rishi Sunak said those words, we learn he is planning a new law to increase the age at which people can smoke, to ultimately prevent sales to people born after a certain year:
Whitehall sources said the prime minister was looking at measures similar to those brought in by New Zealand last December. They involved steadily increasing the legal smoking age so tobacco would end up never being sold to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.
I know what you’re most likely thinking: “But, Mike, smoking is a blight on the world that kills millions every year! ‘Cigareets is a blot on the whole human race/A man is a monkey with one in his face’! How can you oppose something that will ease pressure on the NHS?”
All these things are true.
But this is saying something very particular about Rishi Sunak and his government.
It’s saying they think it’s entirely unacceptable for individuals to be allowed to make a personal choice to gamble with their own health, and the government should act as nanny and take that choice away.
At the same time, it’s saying they think it is entirely acceptable for them to gamble with everybody’s health by ditching ‘Net Zero’ plans.
It’s the hypocrisy that I find unbearable. So much for the “party of choice”!
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The accused: Russell Brand is said to have committed a string of sexual assaults including rape but the only trial he has faced so far has been by the mainstream media – which seem biased against him because of the questions he has raised about them. And doesn’t their manufactured outrage indicate that his arguments have merit?
NOTE: This post is getting an unusually large number of views – which is great! Thanks! But it means you are statistically unlikely to receive notifications of Vox Political articles normally. The answer to this is simple: Subscribe! It’s free, and you can do it using the box in the right-hand column. We’ll both be happier if you do!
I wasn’t going to write about this.
The accusations of sexual assaults, including rape, against Russell Brand are serious matters that, now exposed, are for the police to investigate and – if necessary – prosecute. I would wish to let that happen without comment – partly in order not to prejudice any such investigation.
But the mainstream media seem (and I place emphasis on that word) determined to give Brand a kicking for the years he has spent criticising them and their own biases.
There is an element of the either/or narrative Mr Cook suggests in Jim Waterson’s piece; right at the start, he states:
Russell Brand has spent the past decade telling the world not to trust the mainstream media industry. Now the comedian will find out whether the wider public has bought into this scorched-earth narrative – or if they believe the claims of rape and sexual assault.
Why can’t we believe both?
Just because a person does wrong in one way, that doesn’t mean everything they say and do is untrue or even unacceptable; even if Brand is eventually convicted as a rapist, that should not invalidate any good arguments he makes about the media.
You see – if they are good arguments, they should stand up regardless of who has put them forward.
They should also stand up regardless of whether people branded as undesirable by the mainstream media have stood up to support Brand. Waterson mentions Elon Musk, Andrew Tate and Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson in an apparent attempt at “guilt by association”.
But in fact, Waterson’s article can be seen to support some of those arguments itself; for This Writer’s money, it seems to have been mis-headlined.
He goes on to admit,
there are still questions for mainstream British broadcasters to answer
and he lists some of them, which make it seem (yet again!) apparent that media representatives encouraged aberrant behaviour by Brand while he was working for them:
Hypersexualisation and graphic descriptions of sexual desire were part of his public persona – which is not illegal, but may have been considered red flags by those hiring him to present shows.
During Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary, there is a clip of the comedian telling Lorraine Kelly: “If you’re in a position of some success, people will let you be a nutter as long as they’re making money out of it.”
The suggestion is that – as far as mainstream media moguls were concerned – Brand could do whatever he wanted, as long as he was telling the world what they wanted him to say.
It is only since he turned against the mainstream that they have been looking for a way to undermine him. Waterson states that the initial inquiries against Brand began almost five years ago, after he started criticising the MSM. Why not before, if his behaviour was so well-known?
It seems to me that the media outrage against Brand may be nothing more than hypocritical ass-covering; an attempt to hide its own complicity any any wrong-doing by stirring up hysteria against him now.
And part of that is an attempt to discredit his arguments against them – arguments that may in fact be proved by their naked aggression against him.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer: like-minded hypocrites – or liars?
Watch this short message from a former Labour supporter (if you can stand the extremely spicy language), explaining why he doesn’t support Labour any more – and why claims that people like him are enabling the Tories to win again are offensive.
The guilt tripping needs to stop don’t call us Tony Enablers because we stand by our principles and don’t sell our souls to the highest bidder. pic.twitter.com/m8L1Gb2lJ6
He’s right, of course. Nobody is enabling the Tories to win by voting for policies they would prefer to see enacted, rather than Tory or Labour policies.
If Keir Starmer’s Labour wasn’t so desperate to ape Tory politics rather than finding a new way forward, that party would be enjoying significantly higher support; if Blairites had not sabotaged the Corbyn project, we would have had a Labour government for the last six years; it is Starmer’s politics that is the problem, not the voting habits of the electorate.
Case in point:
This is real Labour. Tax the rich. The politics of envy. And rich doesn’t mean millionaire. It means head teachers, police inspectors, and huge numbers of business owners. If it worked it might have some merit but of course it doesn’t. https://t.co/WSrfZYCFV8
Firstly, the clip shows Reeves has abandoned the policy she had formerly endorsed in favour of a different way. Was the original stance a lie?
The new plan – to improve the fortunes of the population by improving the economy – would rely on employers passing the profits of improved business on in the form of higher wages.
Labour was going to increase taxes on the wealthy – and now it isn’t, having turned in favour of “piss-take” trickle-down economics. Hypocrisy? Or was the original stance a lie?
Moving on, let’s consider Labour’s current stance on Brexit – which is to support it.
This is backtracking on a previous party policy – championed by Keir Starmer during the 2019 general election campaign – to go back to the electorate and check whether a majority of the population still wants to go through with Brexit, after encountering the problems it had triggered already.
Stephen Fry has something to say about that:
"The Labour Party is afraid to mention Brexit – it was a catastrophe and everybody knows it deep in their bones"
Finally, we have Starmer’s own response to a simple question: Westminster or Davos?
I rarely use language like this to describe a politician, but Keir Starmer is a traitor. Not only to the labour movement, but to the U.K. Anyone who prefers the WEF & Davos to Westminster is telling you their concerns are with corporations, not with the people of this country! https://t.co/LUM5ZpkM30
In fact, Starmer made his meaning clear – that he would prefer to be around real people, who know what they stand for, than mouthpieces who change position constantly.
But that just reveals the biggest fault in his behaviour: he constantly changes his own position in an effort to create advantages for himself.
So is it not hypocritical of him to say he prefers the company of people who are not like himself?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Here’s another hypocrite moment: Starmer took the knee for Black Lives Matter but to him it meant nothing more than a photo opportunity. He attacked the organisation shortly after as a “moment”.
Seriously, send links. I know there are a lot of them out there!
For now, let’s have a look at this moment on Good Morning Britain when Keir Starmer was asked if Diane Abbott would be suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party indefinitely, as Jeremy Corbyn was, if she is found to have been anti-Semitic – for “consistency”. Of course, Jeremy Corbyn has not been found to have been anti-Semitic, so it wouldn’t be consistent with anything.
In the same clip, Starmer refers to an “independent” disciplinary process. But he personally wrote the motion to exclude Jeremy Corbyn from being a candidate in general elections, and he has admitted that he personally intervened to have Diane Abbott suspended. So there’s no independence about the process at all:
Despite what Adil implies, the motion to prevent Corbyn from being a Labour candidate didn't mention antisemitism once. As for Starmer boasting about an independent process, he was the one who wrote the motion. And as for consistency, there isn't any. pic.twitter.com/nl28TH4PXs
So he wanted proportional representation to be brought in as a new electoral system a few years ago but, now that Labour might be able to win a big victory in a general election, he reckons the First Past The Post, largest-minority-vote takes-the-seat system is okay.
Please send links to more evidence of hypocrisy if you have it. Let’s keep this going!
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Keir Starmer: the compressed lips suggest that when this image was taken, he had said something he wished he had not. Is that how he feels about having written for The Sun, in a direct insult to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the people of Liverpool generally.
Labour leader Keir Starmer tried to pay homage to those who died, on the 34th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster – but succeeded only in highlighting his own hypocrisy.
Critics of the hard-right-wing Labour leader have spoken up to remind us that Starmer has written articles in The Sun – the (right-wing) news-rag that falsely accused Liverpool fans at the Hillsborough stadium on April 15, 1989.
The Hillsborough Disaster was a fatal human crush at an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, hosted at Sheffield Wednesday’s Hillsborough Stadium on April 15, 1989.
The police service attempted to hide the fact that its failures caused 96 deaths and 766 injuries – the worst disaster in UK sporting history – by trying to blame it on the fans who were injured and died, saying those people caused the tragedy by being drunk and misbehaving.
West Midlands was the force appointed to investigate the disaster, but has since been accused of malpractices and failures that have been subject to a long-running investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
Not only that, though: the prime minister of the day, the Conservative Margaret Thatcher, refused to release information that made the police look bad.
And The Sun, a newspaper published by Rupert Murdoch’s News International, published a story headlined The Truth that was nothing but a pack of lies, supporting the fantasy created by the police.
This Site published the facts more than a decade ago.
Starmer himself spoke up about the hurt caused to the people of Liverpool by The Sun when he was campaigning for election as Labour leader in 2020. He said he would not be giving interviews to the paper during his campaign.
Sadly, as soon as he had been elected, that promise ended and he has written for The Sun since, an act that people in Liverpool consider a bitter insult:
"This city has been wounded by the media, the Sun, in this city, a hurt for this city. And I certainly won't be giving any interviews to the Sun during the course of this campaign."
Starmer seems to be trying to play on both sides of the Hillsborough argument – claiming to sympathise with the families of the dead and survivors of the disaster while writing for the rag that lied about them.
But memories are long in Liverpool.
Let us hope he finds that out in the local elections next month – and in the general election next year if he stubbornly refuses to learn his lesson.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
‘Let the bodies pile high’: we still don’t know whether Boris Johnson actually said it but we know that he agrees with the sentiment because, in the UK, due to Covid-19, the bodies have. Now he is attacking another world leader for causing similar carnage. Hypocrisy?
Are you finding this as hard to swallow as I am?
According to the BBC, Boris Johnson – the man who allegedly expressed his own comfort with the deaths of thousands of people in the UK – wants you to think he is appalled at the alleged mass deaths of civilians in Ukraine:
Mr Johnson has said the UK “will not stand by whilst this indiscriminate and unforgivable slaughter takes place”.
He added: “We are working to ensure those responsible are held to account. We will not rest until justice is done.”
What is he saying, then?
That it is all right to make decisions that result in the deaths of thousands of people – if those people are fellow citizens of your country – but it’s wrong if they’re foreigners?
Call me picky if you like, but I tend to think that any leader who makes decisions that kill thousands of people (and let’s remember that Boris Johnson absolutely and certainly falls into that category) has failed in their most fundamental duty.
We already knew Johnson was a hypocrite, but this is genocidal hypocrisy.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Rishi Sunak: his government has sanctioned firms that operate in, and profit from, connections with Russia, but he had continued to benefit indirectly from his wife’s shares in Infosys, which has an office in Russia. Now that office is to close.
Technology firm Infosys, in which Rishi Sunak’s wife owns shares worth an alleged £400 million, is closing its office in Russia after the Tory Chancellor suffered sustained criticism.
Sunak had tried to claim that it was his wife Akshata Murthy who had been attacked for having a connection with the firm and compared himself to Hollywood actor Will Smith, who slapped comedian Chris Rock for a joke at his own wife’s expense during the Academy Awards ceremony a few days ago.
But it seems nobody was convinced. They were angry with Sunak because, as a member of a government that has sanctioned firms that operate in, and profit from, connections with Russia, he should not have anything to do with such firms.
Because his wife had shares in Infosys, Sunak was indirectly profiting from a connection he should not have.
His decision to hide behind Ms Murthy was disgraceful.
But now, after refusing to take any action to resolve the issue, it seems he has been saved by Infosys itself.
What a lucky escape for him.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Marcus Rashford: he has done far more for the United Kingdom than Natalie Elphicke.
Natalie Elphicke should have learned to keep her opinions to herself after she tried to influence senior judges after her husband was convicted of sexual assault. Clearly she didn’t.
That breach of the MPs’ code of conduct resulted in a pathetic punishment – just one day’s suspension from Parliament. Clearly it wasn’t enough to teach her the lesson she needed to learn.
Earlier this year, she criticised Marcus Rashford – the footballer whose campaigning ensured that the poorest schoolchildren could avoid malnutrition by forcing the government to continue providing free school meals to them during school holidays at the height of the Covid-19 crisis.
After he missed a vital penalty in the Euro 2020 final, she said he should have focused on his football rather than “playing politics”.
What a hypocrite! It turns out that she is among the legion of Tory MPs who have a second job.
The Mirror has the story:
Natalie Elphicke earns almost £100 an hour as the chair of the New Homes Quality Board.
She was handed a one-off £12,000 in November 2020, and since January has been paid just under £700 per week for eight hours’ work, on top of her £81k job as an MP pic.twitter.com/FB8LcNuZdS
Ms Elphicke later apologised, saying: "I regret messaging privately a rash reaction about Marcus Rashford's missed penalty and apologise to him for any suggestion that he is not fully focussed on his football." pic.twitter.com/DtbkU3bBKz
Perhaps Ms Elphicke was distracted from her responsibilities as an MP by the demands of her own second job?
In any case, since she is clearly averse to the idea of people having occupations that distract them from their main work – and therefore must disagree with the Tory claim that it brings a “richness” to their Parliamentary experience…
Will she be resigning her £100-an-hour second job any time soon?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Not the Garrick Club dinner: you can bet Boris Johnson wasn’t drinking water (if that’s really what it was in this pic) at the booze-up with climate denier Lord Moore on Tuesday.
So much for all that nonsense Number 10 was spouting about Boris Johnson’s plane being super-green and its carbon footprint being negated.
It turns out he couldn’t catch a train back to London from COP26 because he was going to a meal with a climate change denier and wanted to get there on time.
Downing Street also said “time constraints” prevented Johnson from travelling by train – and this is clearly more true than all that crap about the environment.
According to the Mirror, Johnson left COP26 at 6.20pm on Tuesday, arriving at London Stansted at 7.16pm.
The train journey would have taken four and a half hours – meaning he would have been very late for the flash dinner reunion for Daily Telegraph journalists, including former editor Lord Charles Moore, who once said the climate crisis was “speculation”.
So there you have it.
After falling asleep at the major meeting to stop climate armageddon – maskless, thereby polluting the atmosphere around national treasure David Attenborough…
He took a plane – the more polluting option, no matter what Downing Street says (have those carbon-offsetting trees been planted yet?)…
And spent the evening at a slap-up meal in the Garrick Club with a self-confessed climate denier.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
David Attenborough at COP26: at 95, he knows he doesn’t have much time left – and he’ll die in despair for the future of the world if COP26 turns out to be just another gust of hot air.
This Writer opened Twitter today to be met by this from the acceptable face of Countdown femininity:
Word of the day is ‘bloviation’ (19th century): empty rhetoric and a good deal of blah.
I bet she’s been monitoring the progress of COP26 – or lack of it.
Here’s the problem:
100 corporate giants are responsible for over 70% of the global emissions. It is not ordinary people who need lectured about their climate responsibilities, it is greedy corporate elites & the Governments they control.
Sadly, it was the governments controlled by the corporates who were on display at COP26 – with predictable results:
Come to Glasgow to see deckchairs being rearranged on the Titanic, just don't mention the iceberg.
— 🇵🇸Sir Norman of Potemkin Island, KBE💚🏴☠️ (@Normanjam671) November 1, 2021
Leading the parade of meaningless speeches was the UK’s prime minister Boris Johnson, a personality vacuum who could do most good for the planet by sucking all the harmful CO2 emissions into the gaping hole where his soul should be.
So far the PM has made a speech about James Bond, done a car crash interview about cutting tax on domestic flights and new coal, fallen asleep, and announced he’s flying back to London tomorrow.
Oh! So tackling climate change is a matter for local planning authorities, is it? Then why did all those world leaders create so many more greenhouse gas emissions by flying and driving to Glasgow so they could drink all that Scottish booze and wag their chins at each other?
As for taking a plane back to London, Downing Street has claimed that he needs to be mobile in order to be where he needs to be at all times, that the plane uses a mixture of 35 per cent renewable fuel and 65 per cent regular (meaning it’s greener) and that the remaining carbon footprint is offset in other ways.
But this is just one flight among many. How many forests are being planted by the government in order to offset them all?
Boris Johnson has taken more luxury private plane flights per day in office than any previous UK prime Minister.https://t.co/k8OuoKZw5E
I'm getting fed up now watching Johnson stumble about, talk absolute gibberish and fall asleep p*ssed at COP26…Why are his fellow Tories accepting this like its normal? He's destroying this country single handedly and Tory Ministers/MP's are just as bad for letting it happen 😡
I see Richard Madeley was salivating at Joe Biden resting his eyes at #COP26 yet no mention of Boris Johnson having a full on hangover kip, yet again @GMB following @BBCNews in protecting this embarrassment of a PM, would they be so protective if it were a Labour PM? No way..
If they were all so great at cutting CO2 emissions – the greenhouse gas mostly responsible for the Earth’s increasing atmospheric temperature that is threatening us all – then COP26 would not have been called.
US President Joe Biden turned out to be another weapons-grade hypocrite (as I suggested yesterday). Look at how he turned up to a conference on reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
(Mind you, he wasn’t the only one who turned up to a conference about saving the environment in a gas guzzling mechanical monster. Hypocrites all…)
Side streets around #COP26 are choked up with chauffeur-driven cars and vans, many with their engines idling. Interesting look for a climate conference. pic.twitter.com/9NO83ydN0w
Exactly. If there was a “market-based solution” to the climate crisis, it would have been implemented long ago and there would have been no need for a summit.
The most sense was spoken by someone who wasn’t even invited…
David Attenborough speaks at Cop26 but they would not allow Greta Thunburg to speak. They are ok with an old man but are shit scared of a young girl.
— Dicky Sparks, Reluctant Citizen of Plague Island (@Dickysparks) November 2, 2021
“My expectation is that we will hear many, many nice speeches, we will hear many pledges that – if you really look into the details – are more or less meaningless but they just say them in order to have something to say, in order for media to have something to report about, and then I expect things to continue to remain the same.
“The COPs as they are now will not lead to anything unless there is big, massive pressure from the outside.”
Wise words – especially when coupled with the big announcement about saving the world’s forests, and the reaction to it.
The headlines today are about a "landmark" pledge to stop deforestation by 2030. The only problem? World governments made *exactly* the same pledge in 2014 and deforestation increased by 40% pic.twitter.com/Pmz5wA5XMC
And check out this dialogue between Labour’s Clive Lewis and Tory Zac Goldsmith on the relative responsibilities of the haves and have-nots:
. It’s not party political Clive. This is an alliance of countries around the world from left to right. It is a turning point for the planet that you and I and everyone else shares.
But it is political. Inequality is hardwired into the global & domestic economic system your party champions. & is clearly a driver for the #climatecrisis. The poor cant give up what they dont consume. Asking capitalism to save the planet is akin to asking a tiger to go vegan. https://t.co/pTu6sQwJd7
Goldsmith was trying to dodge responsibility for the problem, on behalf of his rich buddies – but Lewis is right: the poor can’t give up something they don’t consume.
There were good speeches – but they were made by people with absolutely no power.
David Attenborough’s was a barnstormer…
… but he was speaking to a hostile audience. Look at those faces. They really couldn’t care less.
Maori activist India Logan-Riley also made strong points, having been asked to speak at the last minute:
“In the US and Canada alone Indigenous resistance has stopped or delayed greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to at least one quarter of annual emissions. What we do works.”
Logan-Riley was not overstating the actions of Indigenous people in fighting for the environment. A recent report by Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) and Oil Change International (OCI) found that an amount of greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to at least one-quarter of annual US and Canadian emissions had been stopped or delayed due to Indigenous-led resistance to 21 fossil fuel projects in the two countries over the last decade.
The report found that about 1.587 billion metric tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions have been halted. That is the equivalent pollution of approximately 345 million passenger vehicles — more than all vehicles on the road in these countries, or 400 new coal-fired power plants — more than are still operating in the United States and Canada.
Needless to say, she doesn’t have any political power at all.
All in all, COP26 has turned out to be exactly the copOUT we all feared.
This Writer is left in agreement with Tom London:
If the world fails to stop catastrophic climate change it will be for one reason
That reason is GREED
The world has an abundance of resources of every kind right now but a small GREEDY elite has control of a huge amount and will not share any and wants to get more&more&more
They are in control – because we stupidly allowed it.
And they will make us suffer.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
