[Politics] Safeguards on food standards have been removed.

[highflyer]

They aren't trying to prove something, they are rejecting what is being implied. This is all (very sadly) modern politics 101.

If you are struggling to understand this, let's use another example.

We have a Labour government in power.

The opposition, and anyone else who doesn't like (or even sincerely doesn't trust) the existing Labour government, propose an amendment to the Education bill.

An amendment to, "Forbid the teaching of radical left wing Marxism to primary school children".

Do you expect the Labour government to say they support the amendment? No. (They reject the implication)

Do you expect that this would be because they intend to have radical left wing Marxism taught to primary school children? No. (Again, they reject the implication)

What happens if the amendment passes? The opposition, probably for years to come, "It was only thanks to our bill that the government were prevented from..."

What happens if the amendment fails? The opposition, probably for years to come, "This government REJECTED the proposal to forbid...This proves that..."

Like I said, this is sadly how politics functions today. The government would have had to be naive in the extreme to support the amendment, and they aren't so they didn't. But that says absolutely nothing about their intentions.

This is an excellent analogy as long as:

a) There was very good reason to expect that Labour would need to allow the teaching of radical left wing Marxism to primary school children in order to get a desperately (and I mean desperate) needed trade deal with the US

b) Labour had included in their manifesto an explicit assurance that they would not allow the teaching of radical left wing Marxism to primary school children

Or, to put it another way,

it's a sh*t analogy

 

[beorhthelm]

The bill could have protected us all from the possibility of lowering standards via the back door, which I'd wager is exactly what will happen after a hard brexit and a bendover and shaft me meeting with the Yanks.

it wont have. it only said standards should be applied, those standards remain open to change. just political theatre.

 

[highflyer]

it wont have. it only said standards should be applied, those standards remain open to change. just political theatre.

It's not 'just' political theatre though is it? It will have been designed not with any expectation that it would be successful (with the majority this goverment has, it was never going to) but to ensure that food standards, and the threat to them from a deal with the US, are widely debated and discussed in the media and that the government are not going to be able to quietly drop protections in future (as they will) without some comeback. It has worked well and if I'd been involved in planning this process, I'd be delighted.

 

[dingodan]

It's not 'just' political theatre though is it? It will have been designed not with any expectation that it would be successful (with the majority this goverment has, it was never going to) but to ensure that food standards, and the threat to them from a deal with the US, are widely debated and discussed in the media and that the government are not going to be able to quietly drop protections in future (as they will) without some comeback. It has worked well and if I'd been involved in planning this process, I'd be delighted.

Not to mention the short term political capital of being able to play to the ignorance of the crowd by arguing, dishonestly, that food standards have been compromised, and that this is now proof that the government does not intend/never intended to maintain them.

 

[zefarelly]

Surely the government would have agreed to guarantee the standards if they had any intention of maintaining tham because they Promised us they would?

The possibility of standards being compromised is now very real and a distinct possibility.

 

[highflyer]

Not to mention the short term political capital of being able to play to the ignorance of the crowd by arguing, dishonestly, that food standards have been compromised, and that this is now proof that the government does not intend/never intended to maintain them.

Are you saying that the UK public are stupid and easily manipulated by the media?

It may not be 'proof' that the government never intended to maintain food standards, but it's a pretty damned good indicator. Especially given prior evidence of how dishonest they are.

 

[vegster]

O' Brien at 09.50 mins in was just badgering him and refusing to listen and trying to put words in in his mouth.... the worst kind of interviewer.
I am not a political person but the sensational nature of this thread made me do some checking, and I concur wth the comments of dingodan above.

Only because JRM was keen to avoid answering the straight question " are we going to follow British standards or Australian standards for Beef production?... No not New Zealand Beef... Which one is it? " The classic short clip of Gove " categorically" saying that British standards on food would remain in place is worth watching again...

All of the usual suspects have thrown away their standards in order to try to secure some kind of face saving deal somewhere down the line.

 

[vegster]

O'Brien simply loves the sound of his own voice.

Awful presenter.

Maybe you should go on air and challenge him on the issues then?

 

[beorhthelm]

It's not 'just' political theatre though is it? It will have been designed not with any expectation that it would be successful (with the majority this goverment has, it was never going to) but to ensure that food standards, and the threat to them from a deal with the US, are widely debated and discussed in the media and that the government are not going to be able to quietly drop protections in future (as they will) without some comeback. It has worked well and if I'd been involved in planning this process, I'd be delighted.

exactly, theatre.

 

[highflyer]

exactly, theatre.

But 'theatre' implies just for show when to my mind, it wasn't.

To me this is exactly what good opposition looks like when the government has such a large and obedient majority.

But maybe we are talking at cross purposes.

 

[dingodan]

Are you saying that the UK public are stupid and easily manipulated by the media?

It may not be 'proof' that the government never intended to maintain food standards, but it's a pretty damned good indicator. Especially given prior evidence of how dishonest they are.

That is exactly what I am saying, yes. Look at the original post in this thread: "I was of the impression this would never happen" He was under the impression that food standards wouldn't be lowered. They haven't been. The thread just continues in that vein.

This thread is evidence that people are ignorant of the detail, and the pronouncements of outraged opposition politicians serve to prove that they are willing to take advantage of that ignorance, because they know that the status of our food standards has not changed as a result of this amendment falling, but they would have you believe something else.

This amendment falling is not an indicator of anything, as I have already explained pretty exhaustively. Food standards won't be lowered, but the damage (intentional) has been done. This will serve to add to the "evidence" that the government "lies".

You are being lied to. But not by the government, actually.

 

[zefarelly]

This thread is evidence that people are ignorant of the detail, and the pronouncements of outraged opposition politicians serve to prove that they are willing to take advantage of that ignorance, because they know that the status of our food standards has not changed as a result of this amendment falling, but they would have you believe something else.

This amendment falling is not an indicator of anything, as I have already explained pretty exhaustively. Food standards won't be lowered, but the damage (intentional) has been done. This will serve to add to the "evidence" that the government "lies".

You are being lied to. But not by the government, actually.

This is not true, It is an indicator, standards may well be lowered and the Conservative governement has consistently been proven to lie.

you are just making statements and assumptions and accusing us of all being stupid when you don't know any of us.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Plenty of farmers voted for Brexit, or supported it judging by the signs you see on many farmers fields. Unlucky for them when we start sourcing much cheaper meat / food from outside the country than we do now

At least that might save the badger population from further attacks

 

[Wardy's twin]

That is exactly what I am saying, yes. Look at the original post in this thread: "I was of the impression this would never happen" He was under the impression that food standards wouldn't be lowered. They haven't been. The thread just continues in that vein.

This thread is evidence that people are ignorant of the detail, and the pronouncements of outraged opposition politicians serve to prove that they are willing to take advantage of that ignorance, because they know that the status of our food standards has not changed as a result of this amendment falling, but they would have you believe something else.

This amendment falling is not an indicator of anything, as I have already explained pretty exhaustively. Food standards won't be lowered, but the damage (intentional) has been done. This will serve to add to the "evidence" that the government "lies".

You are being lied to. But not by the government, actually.

Then why do it. Why spend time on a bill like this when we are wracked by the COVID crisis.

We have a government which is hellbent on taking back power so that laws against tax havens will not apply in the UK and they will sell out the 'common man' to get there. The lying comes from the right wing press and the right wing power brokers behind the government who seek to increase their wealth.

 

[Wardy's twin]

it wont have. it only said standards should be applied, those standards remain open to change. just political theatre.

So why do it at all ?

 

[Wardy's twin]

They aren't trying to prove something, they are rejecting what is being implied. This is all (very sadly) modern politics 101.

If you are struggling to understand this, let's use another example.

We have a Labour government in power.

The opposition, and anyone else who doesn't like (or even sincerely doesn't trust) the existing Labour government, propose an amendment to the Education bill.

An amendment to, "Forbid the teaching of radical left wing Marxism to primary school children".

Do you expect the Labour government to say they support the amendment? No. (They reject the implication)

Do you expect that this would be because they intend to have radical left wing Marxism taught to primary school children? No. (Again, they reject the implication)

What happens if the amendment passes? The opposition, probably for years to come, "It was only thanks to our bill that the government were prevented from..."

What happens if the amendment fails? The opposition, probably for years to come, "This government REJECTED the proposal to forbid...This proves that..."

Like I said, this is sadly how politics functions today. The government would have had to be naive in the extreme to support the amendment, and they aren't so they didn't. But that says absolutely nothing about their intentions.

The last labour government was certainly not a friend of the marxist elements of the Labour Party , the next one won't be UNLESS we have a massive failure of the economy and if that happens a marxist government will be the least of people's worries.

Corbyn failed for three reasons a) the feelings of the north towards brexit b) his lack of respect for British Armed forces and c) he was seen as too left wing by people like me who sit centrally. Labour does not equal marxist.

 

[WATFORD zero]

They aren't trying to prove something, they are rejecting what is being implied. This is all (very sadly) modern politics 101.

If you are struggling to understand this, let's use another example.

We have a Labour government in power.

The opposition, and anyone else who doesn't like (or even sincerely doesn't trust) the existing Labour government, propose an amendment to the Education bill.

An amendment to, "Forbid the teaching of radical left wing Marxism to primary school children".

Do you expect the Labour government to say they support the amendment? No. (They reject the implication)

Do you expect that this would be because they intend to have radical left wing Marxism taught to primary school children? No. (Again, they reject the implication)

What happens if the amendment passes? The opposition, probably for years to come, "It was only thanks to our bill that the government were prevented from..."

What happens if the amendment fails? The opposition, probably for years to come, "This government REJECTED the proposal to forbid...This proves that..."

Like I said, this is sadly how politics functions today. The government would have had to be naive in the extreme to support the amendment, and they aren't so they didn't. But that says absolutely nothing about their intentions.

WTF are you wittering on about now

I'm simply pointing out the complete and utter gross stupidity of this post you made.

The government are fully committed to maintaining the high food standards that we have, and they intend to do it without having their hands tied, without others being able to say, ad infinitum, that the reason food standards were maintained was bacause the government were forced to maintain them by law, rather than because they said they would maintain them and they meant it.

where you claimed that the Government didn't want to be forced to maintain food standards, so that they could then prove how honourable and honest they were by maintaining them anyway.

It's one of the single most stupid posts I have ever read on NSC and, believe me that is certainly some achievement

 

[Is it PotG?]

Maybe you should go on air and challenge him on the issues then?

Now THERE'S a challenge.

Would he let me talk, or speak right over me?

 

[dingodan]

WTF are you wittering on about now

I'm simply pointing out the complete and utter gross stupidity of this post you made.



where you claimed that the Government didn't want to be forced to maintain food standards, so that they could then prove how honourable and honest they were by maintaining them anyway.

It's one of the single most stupid posts I have ever read on NSC and, believe me that is certainly some achievement

You are twisting my words. They aren't trying to prove they don't need to be forced. The amendment is trying to imply that they do need to be forced.

 

[dingodan]

The last labour government was certainly not a friend of the marxist elements of the Labour Party , the next one won't be UNLESS we have a massive failure of the economy and if that happens a marxist government will be the least of people's worries.

Corbyn failed for three reasons a) the feelings of the north towards brexit b) his lack of respect for British Armed forces and c) he was seen as too left wing by people like me who sit centrally. Labour does not equal marxist.

Not my point though was it. Others argue otherwise. Others would be minded to table such an amendment (although I am using an extreme example to help illustrate the point, a) Labour would reject the amendment, b) that's not because they would be in favor of doing the opposite).