Environment

Carbon Dividends: A Plan for Earth’s Survival that Can Survive U.S. Politics?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 31/07/2019 - 11:55pm in

Yves here. Carbon dividends are a way to create support for setting a price for carbon. None other than those starry-eyed granola heads at Financial Times called for setting a price for carbon in 2007. Pigovian taxes (ones meant to discourage activity, like transactions taxes) should typically not be seen as revenue generators, since you […]

More Than 160 Environmental Defenders Were Killed in 2018, and Many Others Labeled Terrorists and Criminals

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 31/07/2019 - 2:29am in

Tags 

Environment

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, was disturbed to learn that her name had been included on a list of “terrorists” allegedly affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People’s Army.

Authoritarian President Rodrigo Duterte had imposed martial law on the island of Mindanao in May 2017, when ISIS sympathizers attacked the predominantly Muslim city Marawi. By October, ISIS had been ousted, but martial law remained in place. Tauli-Corpuz, who is Filipina and a member of the Indigenous Kankanaey Igorot people, saw the emergency suspension of rights transform into a tool to go after the Indigenous Lumad people, who have stood in the way of Duterte’s industrial priorities in the region, including agribusiness, coal extraction, and gold mining. In the two months after the ISIS conflict ended, the military’s harassment and violence reportedly displaced 2,500 Lumad people.

Tauli-Corpuz and Cecilia Jimenez-Damary, the U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced people, released a statement that December demanding that the Philippine government halt all human rights abuses against the Lumad, including killings and violent attacks carried out by members of the armed forces, and bring those responsible to account.

A few months later, the Duterte administration placed Tauli-Corpuz on a list of 600 so-called terrorists as part of a petition filed in court seeking to declare the Communist Party and its armed wing as terrorist organizations. Human Rights Watch declared the petition a “virtual hit list,” citing the “long history in the Philippines of the state security forces and pro-government militias assassinating people labeled as NPA members or supporters.”

Fearing for her safety, Tauli-Corpuz left the country. As she saw it, Duterte was once again using anti-terrorism rhetoric to attack the Lumad people and obtain access to their territory — this time by undermining a key international protector.

UN special rapporteur on rights of indigenous people Victoria Tauli-Corpuz presents results after a ten-day visit to Ecuador, at a hotel in Quito on November 29, 2018. (Photo by Cristina VEGA / AFP)        (Photo credit should read CRISTINA VEGA/AFP/Getty Images)

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, presents results after a visit to Ecuador at a hotel in Quito on Nov. 29, 2018.

Photo: Christina Vega/AFP/Getty Images

Thirty land and environmental defenders were murdered in the Philippines last year — more than in any other country, according to a new report released by the nonprofit Global Witness. But murder only represents the extreme end of the spectrum of abuses faced by those fighting to protect their homes, forests, and rivers against the encroachment of destructive industries. For land defenders across the globe, a simple smear campaign — such as labeling an advocate a terrorist — can end with someone discredited, in prison, or dead. Any of the three results has the same effect: to eliminate a barrier to agribusiness, dam projects, or extractive industries.

For the first time since Global Witness began releasing its annual reports in 2012, the organization has included a section on criminalization, in which governments and private interests create, change, or reinterpret laws to transform once-legal activities into criminal acts.

“Criminalization is done to put fear into the hearts of people so they will stop protesting. For Indigenous people, this is a very serious action because when they criminalize a leader, then the whole community or organization gets paralyzed,” Tauli-Corpuz told The Intercept. “That’s what it’s intended to do — it’s intended to repress freedom of association and the freedom of people to express their own views.”

Many Deaths Go Unrecorded

6612scr_b55a177f2a43c5d-1564423407

Image: Courtesy Global Witness

In 2018, Global Witness documented 164 killings worldwide of people fighting to protect their land and ecosystems from destructive industries. Nearly a quarter of those murdered were Indigenous. And more than a quarter of the killings were associated with opposition to mining and extractives industries.

Colombia, India, and Brazil were also among the deadliest places for land defenders last year. And Guatemala, the origin country of a quarter of the migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018, had the highest rate per capita of land defenders murdered. According to Global Witness’s count, the number of murders there rose from three in 2017 to 16 in 2018. As The Intercept previously reported, the victims were fighting to protect their territories from a range of industries, from agribusiness to hydropower to mining. The uptick in violence has been linked to a sharp turn away from democracy in the country and President Jimmy Morales’s abandonment of internationally lauded efforts to combat impunity and corruption.

In its report, Global Witness makes clear that its tally of land defenders murdered is almost certainly an undercount. Researchers rely heavily on in-country human rights organizations and journalists to record such attacks. In countries where press freedom is stymied or other conflicts complicate the ability of such groups to track violent incidents, land and environmental defender deaths go unrecorded.

Tauli-Corpuz’s experience underlines the risks undertaken by those who simply document violence and intimidation. In Guatemala, too, the leaders of the nonprofit Unit for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, who meticulously track murders, arrests, and smear campaigns against people fighting destructive industries, have themselves faced some of the same threats as those for whom they advocate.

Lucas Jorge Garcia, president of the local community development committee, and member of the Ixquisis Peaceful Resistance against the San Mateo Hydroelectric Project, poses for a photo along the Negro River. Ixquisis, San Mateo Ixtatan, Huehuetenango, Guatemala. April 26, 2019.

Lucas Jorge Garcia, a member of the Ixquisis peaceful resistance against the San Mateo hydroelectric project, poses for a photo along Río Negro in Huehuetenango, Guatemala, on April 26, 2019.

Photo: Courtesy James Rodriguez/Global Witness

Crackdown on Dissent

Alice Harrison, a spokesperson for Global Witness, said that a focus strictly on murders obscures the wider range of violence and persecution land defenders face. For example, last year was the first since 2012 that Brazil did not have the highest number of deaths on the organization’s tally. But advocates for land defenders in Brazil, Harrison said, “have seen an uptick in really violent physical attacks, a lot of them just shy of murder.” It’s expected to get worse, she said. President Jair Bolsonaro has pledged to open up the Amazon and Indigenous territories to industry; budget and staffing have been slashed at Brazil’s environmental monitoring agency as well as the agency responsible for monitoring the rights of Indigenous people in areas with violent land conflicts.

And across Latin America, killings often occur only after individuals have been framed as criminals through the legal system. The Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres, for example, faced years of legal pressure before being assassinated by hit men hired by the dam she opposed.

“When you start looking at defenders through criminalization, you start to draw dots between global south and global north,” said Harrison. In countries like the U.S. and the U.K., murders of land defenders are rare, but arrests, lawsuits, and disproportionate penalties for crimes like trespassing are common. In countries across the globe, new laws have been passed that criminalize dissent under the guise of national security.

In 2018, according to Global Witness, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and Vietnam passed laws that could be used to stifle political dissent or prosecute environmental activists.

The U.S. has also seen a spate of anti-protest laws passed. Since Donald Trump was elected, at least 17 states have introduced bills increasing penalties for anyone who interferes with “critical infrastructure,” including controversial oil and gas pipelines. The laws have passed in eight states. This past June, the Trump administration proposed federal legislation that would prescribe up to 20 years in prison for disrupting or conspiring to disrupt an oil or gas pipeline.

With supporters of unfettered development like Duterte, Trump, and Bolsonaro in positions of power across the globe, the risks for environmental defenders are only expected to increase, even as the accelerating climate and biodiversity crises enhance the urgency of their work.

Harrison would like to see a stronger regulatory environment for land defenders. As an example, she points to the Lacey Act in the U.S., which requires wood importers to assure that their suppliers are not sourcing logs using illegal practices. Nothing equivalent exists in the U.S. for industries like agribusiness.

Tauli-Corpuz says organizing against laws that criminalize protest is essential. In the Philippines, a court ordered that her name be removed from the terrorist list following sustained pressure from local and international organizations. Eventually, the list was thrown out entirely.

But martial law is still in place in Mindanao, and the label of “terrorist” or “Communist” is still used across the Philippines as an excuse to criminalize and attack the Lumad and other Indigenous land defenders.

“We cannot just take these kinds of actions quietly. We have to protest and get the support of the international community and other people who are concerned about this kind of fascism,” Tauli-Corpuz said. “It’s really important to wage a campaign any time such criminalization happens — that is one way of protecting people.”

The post More Than 160 Environmental Defenders Were Killed in 2018, and Many Others Labeled Terrorists and Criminals appeared first on The Intercept.

Why Human Evolution Is a Fact

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 31/07/2019 - 12:51am in

There is little doubt that evolution happens, or that humans are products of evolution by natural selection.

Carmakers and California Agree on Emissions Rules

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 29/07/2019 - 11:55pm in

Carmakers agree to comply “voluntarily” with California’s tightened emissions standards - thus thwarting Trump plans to rollback proposed nationwide rules.

Mesmerised by Messmer

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 29/07/2019 - 4:27pm in

Tags 

Environment

Faced with glaring evidence of delays and cost blowouts, advocates of nuclear power invariably fall back on the same argument: France did it in the 1970s, why can’t we? An obvious riposte is that France can’t do it any more, as shown by the Flamanville fiasco. A more reasonable answer, which I put forward some years ago, is that the 1970s program depended on characteristics of the French state at the time: centralised, technocratic and with complete control of the energy sector. Those characteristics can’t be replicated today – the state doesn’t have the same power to ignore public opinion or to direct investment.

In writing this, I wasn’t aware of the details of the French experience, which make the point even more clearly. The French nuclear expansion began with the announcement of the Messmer Plan, by PM Pierre Messmer for France to go ‘all nuclear, all electric’.

Messmer announced the plan in early 1974, and construction of the first three plants started in December of that year. There was no parliamentary debate, no opportunity for public discussion and of course nothing like an environmental impact statement. It was the absence of any kind of due process, rather than super-efficient construction that accounts for the speed with which the Plan took effect. The first plants took six years to build; delays and costs increased over time.

Even so, the Plan was not delivered in full.The plan envisaged the construction of around 80 nuclear plants by 1985 and a total of 170 plants by 2000. Even so, the Plan was not delivered in full. The actual number was only 56, and the hoped for transition to an all-electric economy didn’t happen.

A failure of collective intelligence

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 29/07/2019 - 2:32pm in

By Warwick Smith
An essay I wrote has won second prize in New Philosopher magazine’s latest writer’s prize and has been published in the magazine.


As I did with my last New Philosopher essay, I’ll probably publish this at The Conversation after the next edition of New Philosopher comes out. If you want to read it in the meantime, pick up a copy of NP.

New Study Predicts Millions of Americans May Become Exposed to “Off the Charts” Heat

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 27/07/2019 - 5:59pm in

Climate scientist Michael Mann discusses the increasing frequency and severity of heat waves, as we've seen in India, the US, and now Europe.

Ohio Republicans Balked at a Nuclear Bailout, so the Industry Elected New Republicans — and Walked Away With $1.1 Billion

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 26/07/2019 - 9:00pm in

On Tuesday, a dark-money effort linked primarily to the Ohio nuclear industry delivered an audacious payoff, as a newly elected state legislature overcame years of opposition to shower a $1.1 billion bailout on two state nuclear plants.

Several dark-money groups spent millions to replace key Republican state legislators in the spring of 2018, followed by a furious lobbying campaign to make sure those new lawmakers elected a new House speaker — one who was amenable to the subsidy. The nuclear industry in Ohio has been on the brink of failure for several years, but previous legislatures had objected to a bailout, reading the writing on the wall: Nuclear power is neither a cost-effective solution for power nor an effective response to climate change, despite hopes for its success.

Nuclear power is neither a cost-effective solution for power nor an effective response to climate change, despite hopes for its success.

In April 2018, two nuclear plants, both owned by the electric utility FirstEnergy, filed for bankruptcy and have been threatening to cease operations if not bailed out. They were under increasing pressure to compete with cheaper alternatives, ranging from natural gas to wind and solar. The bankruptcy filings give a glimpse into the company’s political spending: more than $30 million from 2018-2019 on lobbying and campaigns in Ohio and Pennsylvania (where the company also sought a bailout, so far unsuccessfully).

The dark-money effort deployed a variety of vehicles that went by names like the Conservative Leadership Alliance and the Ohio Clean Energy Jobs Alliance. Murray Energy, a coal company, also gave heavily to current state House Speaker Larry Householder and his allied candidates, and the bailout from Ohio also includes subsidies to prop up failing coal plants in the state.

The payoff is extraordinary in degree — something like $30 million for campaigns in Ohio and Pennsylvania to win $1.1 billion in government subsidy. But it is similar in kind to other nuclear projects across the country. According to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit devoted to research and advocacy, five cash-strapped states across the country have foisted more than $15 billion in subsidies on failing nuclear power plants since 2016, the latest sign that nuclear is unable to stand in a competitive energy market against lower-cost renewables.

In Ohio, the state House battle was fought in at least 18 competitive Republican primaries, all proxy battles between Reps. Ryan Smith, the incumbent House speaker, and Larry Householder. Householder was a co-sponsor of the nuclear bailout bill that stalled in the legislature in 2018, making him a key ally to the nuclear industry. Several dark-money vehicles backed the pro-Householder candidates, and won 15 of the 18 races. Four pro-Householder candidates lost in the general election, but the primary wins put Householder in contention for the speakership.

The industry even targeted one Republican state representative who had rebuffed FirstEnergy’s advances before making a bid for Congress. “I didn’t budge when they came into my office to lobby me,” former state Rep. Christina Hagan said of FirstEnergy. “I became the target of the company and the members of our leadership team who wanted to get it done but couldn’t because I wasn’t going to be supportive. I’m sure they just wanted to make an example of me in my race for higher office that if you don’t play well, this is what will happen to you.”

On top of the dark money, FirstEnergy’s political action committees directly contributed more than $150,000 to the campaigns of Householder and candidates aligned with him, while giving none to Smith last cycle. Of the pro-Householder candidates who won their races, all but one supported the bailout.

Dark money also contributed to ads on Ohio television. Generation Now spent almost $2 million on ads in favor of the bailout, and perhaps much more. The Growth & Opportunity PAC, which got more than $1 million in donations from Generation Now, also blanketed the state House districts with television ads in favor of Republican candidates. Generation Now’s office is listed as the Columbus address of a longtime Householder adviser, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

The new lawmakers entered office in January, and Householder, who, along with his son, flew to Donald Trump’s inauguration on a FirstEnergy-chartered plane, won with the backing of 26 Republican and 26 Democratic representatives, while Smith got the votes of 34 and 11, respectively. Householder was able to win the support of those Democrats with his opposition to right-to-work legislation, as unions pushed Democrats to back him in the speaker fight with Smith. 

The Ohio legislation includes measures designed specifically to undermine the planet’s continued capacity to support a steady human population.

That month, the legislature also began work on reviving the nuclear bill known as HB 6. At least seven witnesses who spoke to the legislature in support of the bill drew on testimony written by a FirstEnergy lobbying firm, according to a review of metadata by the Energy and Policy Institute, which has closely tracked the fight.

On July 23, Smith and 14 other House Republicans voted against the bailout, but Householder was able to push it through 51-38, backed by nine Democrats. It was quickly signed by the state’s new governor, Republican Mike DeWine. (FirstEnergy also contributed to the campaign of DeWine, who then tapped a FirstEnergy lobbyist to be his liaison to the legislature.)

The Ohio legislation reads as if it was designed specifically to undermine the planet’s continued capacity to support a steady human population. Along with propping up the state’s two nuclear plants, it also provides subsidies for failing coal plants in the state, as well as one in Indiana. It cuts and eventually ends any subsidies for new wind or solar, while approving just $20 million annually for large-scale solar projects that have already been approved. It even ends programs aimed at encouraging Ohio residents to reduce power consumption, through upgrades to appliances or heating and cooling systems.

In April, Householder denied that the corporate PAC money had anything to do with the nuclear bill, and said that FirstEnergy should be applauded for its civic engagement. “For them to care about those people who are trying to serve the state of Ohio and make sure they’ve got good quality candidates moving forward I think is important for anybody,” he said.

When asked specifically about ads from the dark-money-funded Growth & Opportunity PAC, Householder said, “I’ll tell you who’s paying for these ads: it’s working men and women from Ohio, who want to save their jobs and it’s Ohio corporations, headquartered in Ohio, that want to stay here. That’s who’s paying for it.” He did not respond to a request for comment from The Intercept.

 Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown meets with retired coal miners, some accompanied by their wives, at United Steelworkers Local 1238 in Martins Ferry, Ohio on July 5. (Photo by Dustin Franz/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown meets with retired coal miners at United Steelworkers Local 1238 in Martins Ferry, Ohio, on July 5, 2017.

Photo: Dustin Franz/ The Washington Post via Getty Images

The role of the nuclear industry in the shuffling of speakers was not prominent in the news coverage of the politics, but it wasn’t entirely unknown. Gregory Jaczko, who served as chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2009 to 2012, said that the industry’s role in the affair was visible to those paying close attention. “FirstEnergy has been trying, really, for years to get this subsidy, and the legislature kept denying it, and nobody really, even the previous governor [John Kasich] was not really supportive of it,” he said. “FirstEnergy put a lot of money into local races and essentially turned the legislature around. So they ran this thing through.”

On a policy level, the legislation is appalling, said Jaczko, who has become an outspoken critic of the industry, and recently published a book, “Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator.” Building new wind and solar capacity would not only be a better climate solution and produce more jobs, he said, it would be far cheaper for the state, and it’s the direction Ohio will have to go eventually anyway. Wind and solar “creates a brand new economy, which is going to be a future-looking economy rather than a dying economy,” said the former NRC chair. “Nuclear is dying. It’s dying in Ohio.”

“FirstEnergy put a lot of money into local races and essentially turned the legislature around. So they ran this thing through.”

The irony, he noted, is that Ohio had planned to be a testing ground for next-generation smaller nuclear power plants, which purported to solve some of the problems associated with nuclear energy, and won federal subsidies to try to build them. “As soon as they got that money from the Department of Energy, they decided they weren’t going to pursue these reactors anymore,” Jaczko said. No new nuclear plants are planned for Ohio or anywhere else in the United States, and the closure of the two currently operating facilities is not a matter of if, but when. The billion-dollar subsidy only delays the transition to wind and solar, he said.

Winning the speakership is quite the comeback for Householder, whose career appeared to be cut short in the mid-2000s by a federal investigation into kickbacks and a pay-to-play scandal. Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, had referred the case to the FBI; it was resolved without charges. Householder won election back to the House in 2016, and during his first cycle, the incumbent speaker resigned amid his own FBI investigation. Smith took over on a temporary basis, leading to the battle between the two.

Ohio’s two senators, both of whose campaigns have taken money from FirstEnergy throughout their careers, were on different pages when asked about the billion-dollar bailout. Republican Sen. Rob Portman, whose campaigns have taken at least $615,000 from FirstEnergy PACs since his first run for Senate in 2009, said he didn’t know enough of the details of the decision and was swamped with other things this week.

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, though, was indignant. “You don’t bail out utility companies and raise prices for customers,” Brown said. The utility has contributed around $380,000 to Brown’s campaigns since 1997, when he was in the House of Representatives. “And you don’t undermine the efforts our state has made on alternative energy and other energy sources. So it’s just wrong.” Asked about reports of the involvement of dark-money groups in pushing the bailout, Brown said: “Of course there is.”

“I mean, these things happen because these monied interests control the state legislature. There’s no question about it.”

In a statement Brown’s office sent later in the day, the senator added that expending enormous resources to prop up outdated sources of power would only hurt Ohio going forward. “Of course we need to make sure our state has access to reliable power, but we shouldn’t do that by raising the utility bills of hardworking Ohioans,” Brown said. “We need solutions designed for Ohio workers and families, not Wall Street and fat-cat lobbyists. By eliminating the renewable standard, Ohio is going backward when almost every other state is looking to the good-paying jobs of the future. It’s short-sighted and it is going to result in significant lost opportunities in our state—our businesses will be less competitive, energy developers will avoid investing in Ohio, and there will be fewer jobs in this growing sector.”

The cost of the nuclear bailout for Ohio ratepayers is a bargain compared to the bill being given to residents in South Carolina. The cost of a failed program to build a nuclear power plant there topped $9 billion. Two of the companies involved — Dominion Energy and SCANA Corporation — entered into a buyout and settled a large portion of the bill, leaving ratepayers responsible for footing the remaining $2.3 billion, more than twice the Ohio figure. Not a single kilowatt of energy was produced in South Carolina by the project, which consisted largely of a hole in the ground.

The Ohio subsidies for coal and nuclear, which follow bailouts doled out by Illinois, New York, and New Jersey, underscore the futility of pursuing nuclear power.

Nuclear power once offered the tantalizing promise of endless cheap and clean energy, and to this day remains a hope in the minds of some climate activists. But in reality, nuclear hasn’t met the promise. It is far more expensive to produce nuclear power than wind or solar, and the world has not solved the intractable problem of nuclear waste, to say nothing of safety. To truly meet the scale of the climate crisis with nuclear power, Jaczko said, the world would need to start construction on roughly 1,000 plants this year. But because of the safety concerns, waste problem, and astronomical cost, there are just a handful being built. Ohio lawmakers, though, are hanging on to the bitter end — courtesy of Ohio’s residents.

The post Ohio Republicans Balked at a Nuclear Bailout, so the Industry Elected New Republicans — and Walked Away With $1.1 Billion appeared first on The Intercept.

The World’s Biggest Lawsuit: Juliana v. United States

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 26/07/2019 - 5:55am in

"This case gives me hope that we will not continue to cooperate in our own destruction, and future generations will be able to rely on us to uphold the spirit of the law and purpose behind government" --Attorney

Boris Johnson and His Cabinet of Privileged Thugs Seize Office

So it’s finally happened. As just about everyone expected, but nobody outside his circle of the Tory far right actually wanted, yesterday Boris Johnson finally slithered into office. It was already on the cards on Monday, when the papers published this piccie of an expectant, jubilant Boris.

It sounds ridiculous, but I know people, who were genuinely unsettled by this image. They described him as looking mad, possessed even. I think it was probably due to a loathing of the man’s vile personal character and views coupled to his goofy expression. It also struck me that with his eye’s wide and his mouth wide open, there’s a certain superficial resemblance to the expression on this notorious American mass murderer, Charles Manson.

Which means that when they saw the picture of Johnson, subconsciously they saw this:

Which is enough to give anyone the creeping horrors.

Now Johnson isn’t a vile, unrepentant serial killer and cult leader like the late Manson. But he is an obscenely wealthy aristo, who has just appointed a cabinet of similarly obscenely wealthy aristos, none of whom seem to have the old virtues of genuine concern for the poor of the Tory paternalists. Because being ‘wet’ went out with Maggie Thatcher. They also stand for nothing more than their own enrichment and the simultaneous impoverishment of the less fortunate. They are vehemently pro-Brexit, anti-welfare and for privatisation and deregulation, despite the immense harm these zombie economics have done to this country and its proud, fine people. And it hardly needs to be said that they’re also pro-fracking and against the environment.

Two days ago on Tuesday, male feminist and anti-Fascist YouTuber Kevin Logan put up a video, Super Rich F**ks, which exactly described the Tory front bench. It was a piece of musical satire, mirrored from Dirty Little Owl’s channel, which showed images of various leading Tory politicians, with captions showing their personal wealth and a short piece about their horrendous voting record, while a song plays in the background viciously sending them up.

It begins with the statement that the Tories have a combined net worth of £2.4 billion, before going to the following –

Michael Gove

Net worth, £1 million +

Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability.

Chris Grayling

Net worth, £1.5 million

Almost always voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms. (Bedroom tax).

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

Net worth £1.5 million

Almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits.

Is a massive child.

Theresa May

Net worth: £2 million

While her husband’s £1.1 trillion investment firm avoided UK tax, she cut 2,000 police, raised tax on the self-employed and took benefits from 60,000 disabled people.

Penny Mordaunt

Net work: £2.5 million

Always voted to reduce help with council tax for those in financial need.

Philip Hammond

Net worth: £8.2 million.

Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices.

Sajid Javid

Net worth: £8.5 million

Almost always voted against spending public money to create jobs for young people who’ve spent a long time unemployed.

Lord Stratchclyde

Net worth: £10 million

Voted against free school meals and milk.

Wryly commenting on the girth of the above aristo, the video comments that ‘clearly hasn’t suffered a want of meals himself.’

Jeremy Hunt

Net worth: £14 million

Here the video quotes his views advocating the destruction of the NHS:

‘Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of healthcare in Britain.’

Adam Afriyie

Net worth: £50 million

Voted for reduction in benefits for disabled and ill claimants required to participate in activities intended to increase their chances of obtaining work.

Zac Goldsmith

Net worth: £75 million

Voted in favour of proposed spending cuts and changes to the welfare system in favour of spending on new nuclear weapons.

Lord Deighton

Net worth: £95 million

Voted against protections for pensions being ‘raided’ when the master trust fails.

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Net worth: £100 million

Voted for cuts in Housing Benefits for recipients in homelessness hostels, refuges, sheltered housing and accommodation for people with ongoing support needs.

Richard Benyon – richest MP in the UK

Net worth: £110 million

Voted to set the rate of increase for certain benefits, payments and tax credits at 1%, rather than in line with the increase in prices at 2.2%.

The Marquess of Salisbury

Net worth: £330 million

Receives £250,000 each year of taxpayers’ money for his inherited 10,000 acres, mostly in Jersey.

Lord Ashcroft

Net worth: £1.2 billion.

A tax exile in Belize who has poured millions into the Conservative Party over the years and strongly supported Brexit, which would remove Britain from the jurisdiction of forthcoming tax avoidance rules in the EU.

This bit has a clip from Panorama showing Brexit hiding in the gents’ toilets to avoid having to answer questions on tax avoidance.

I dare say that some of these grotesques are no longer in power, like Theresa May, thanks to Johnson’s massive purge of the cabinet. But those, who have replaced them are pretty much the same. They are what Private Eye once described as ‘the futile rich’. Their only concern is to grab more money for themselves, and steal it from the mouths of the poor.

And the press are complicit in this. Owned by millionaires themselves, they’ve now started a campaign of truly nauseating sycophancy, praising Boris to the rafters. Toby Young even raved about how Boris was a type of ‘Nietzschean superman’.

See: https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2019/07/tory-propaganda-assault-begins.html

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2019/07/toby-young-says-gissa-job-bozza.html

And the Beeb enthusiastically joined in last night on the One Show, where one of the guests was his father.

It’s all just Tory lies, one after another. Boris won’t do anything for this country. He doesn’t stand for more investment in the NHS or public services. He won’t put 20,000 more rozzers on the street. But he will privatise the NHS and cut welfare spending like the Tories always have. And Brexit will decimate our manufacturing industry, just as they’re anti-environmentalism will destroy our natural environment.

Get these thugs and hypocrites out now!

Boris, do what you said ought to be done when Blair transferred power to Brown and call an election so we can kick your sorry rear end out of No. 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pages