Fine words, with which I would not disagree. But where is the action to match the words? In fact I would ask why do the words seem mocked by the realities? How can a company supplying water be £14 billion in debt? When is there going to be accountability for Grenfell? When they leave their offices, do our politicians go home to houses in an alternative universe? The time for this guidance from Mr Gove would have been straight after gaining a large Parliamentary majority, not when it looks likely to be lost.
Funding Both Sides: How Jewish Money Controls British Politics . . .
“During the previous Labour government, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were ardent Zionists because they accepted the justice of Israel’s cause, not because Labour’s chief fund-raisers were first the Jew Michael Levy and then the Jew Jonathan Mendelsohn (both are now members of the House of Lords). And during the current Conservative government, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been ardent Zionists because they too accept the justice of Israel’s cause, not because the Conservatives’ chief fund-raisers have been first the Jew Sir Mick Davis and then the Jew Sir Ehud Sheleg.”
I don't disagree with anything you have written Mr Gove, but from the perspective of a very small business (highly profitable/great productivity) it would be useful to have a steer on how to avoid the creeping tendency for our customers to insist on foisting their "standards" on us, via the audit chain, that they need to validate their own business.
As an example, we act as specialist sub-contractors for lots of larger companies, who need our quite industrial skills frequently, but who increasingly ask us to complete huge on line questionaires about corruption, race mix or migrant employment, or sex discrimination to qualify us. We have seven employees, all male except one, almost all with a high level of security clearances (Ex-service MOD), and you want my single payroll admin person to comply with 97 companies' audit processes, or pay for theirs (at a cost of approximate £1500 pa) when the value of the work they offer us is rarely more than £2000 per project. Rev up and fuck off, or reach out to develop a more considered approach. It's not going to bother us (the founders of the business) much longer as we are retiring, but we have built an awesome little business, and we'd like to leave it thriving. The work and demand is there, and growing. Brexit has not hurt too much, but the supply chain has slowed down. A less dramatic separation with the SM would have been welcome.
Funding Both Sides: How Jewish Money Controls British Politics . . .
“During the previous Labour government, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were ardent Zionists because they accepted the justice of Israel’s cause, not because Labour’s chief fund-raisers were first the Jew Michael Levy and then the Jew Jonathan Mendelsohn (both are now members of the House of Lords). And during the current Conservative government, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been ardent Zionists because they too accept the justice of Israel’s cause, not because the Conservatives’ chief fund-raisers have been first the Jew Sir Mick Davis and then the Jew Sir Ehud Sheleg.”
You say that your business is highly profitable. Good for you and your workers. So why exactly are you whinging about the cost filling in a few forms? If you have some moral objection to your customers' requirements, then the answer lies in the colourful phrase in your second paragraph.
Weazel words. Gove has had years to reform. He has meddled and obfuscated not engaged with housebuilders he could have paused nutrient regulation from Natural England for instance. Simon Clarke was much more growth orientated. I was appaeld Gove was put back in charge. Gove talks the talk but seems just concerned with appealing to libdem and nimby to save his southern seat. The best for the Conservative party and growth is meddlers like Gove and his I'll thought out infrastructure levy lose their seats.
We are in favour of good things; but, and I make no apologies if this shocks or dismays you, we are also against bad things.
And what if having more of one good thing might lead to having less of another good thing? We are above all else opposed to recognising that that is a possibility. No conservative could even suggest such a thing.
The denial of reality is not merely essential to the Govean view of conservatism; the denial of reality is Govean conservatism. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a speech on the importance of building new homes to write, followed by a busy afternoon of denying planning permission to new homes.
I suspect it’s because (a) it’s more than a few forms; (b) even if it wasn’t, ‘a few forms’ filled in by every business in the UK amounts to an expensive mountain of forms; (c) the information requested is often intrusive, irrelevant or both; and (d) the state bureaucracy that feeds off these forms is bloated to the point of obesity (though, sadly, it never seems to become morbidly obese).
Not much I disagree with here. But why weren't you pushing these things when there was a chance to do something about them? Why aren't you pushing them now? There's still time to legislate.
The cost of filling in a few forms is just the start! After that there's an annual fee to have the client's compliance people check it. On top of ISO9001, and top level cyber-security fees and subs which are a necessary cost of trading, it adds a level of (mostly pointless) bureaucratic waffle to keep a growing army of grey suits in unproductive, well-paid employment. Compliance is strangling small businesses in red tape.
Every single Hospital Trust has a different set of qualification procedures, for example; why not a single standardised NHS contractor register or database?
Weazel words from a con. Gove has had decades to sort out reform take on the nimby and go for growth. Simon Clarke and truss wanted to. Gove has actively obfuscated growth with meddling. Best thing that could happen for the Conservative party is he loses seat to libdem
Well, to go back to the water privatisation, because getting the treasury to sanction money for utilities investment was a hiding to nowhere; the money was always designated for more electorally appealing causes. So, they were privatised to raise money in the open market, whereupon companies saw the appeal of universal need for the service and ignored the obligations that accompanied the revenue stream.... and here we are.
Fine words, with which I would not disagree. But where is the action to match the words? In fact I would ask why do the words seem mocked by the realities? How can a company supplying water be £14 billion in debt? When is there going to be accountability for Grenfell? When they leave their offices, do our politicians go home to houses in an alternative universe? The time for this guidance from Mr Gove would have been straight after gaining a large Parliamentary majority, not when it looks likely to be lost.
Funding Both Sides: How Jewish Money Controls British Politics . . .
“During the previous Labour government, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were ardent Zionists because they accepted the justice of Israel’s cause, not because Labour’s chief fund-raisers were first the Jew Michael Levy and then the Jew Jonathan Mendelsohn (both are now members of the House of Lords). And during the current Conservative government, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been ardent Zionists because they too accept the justice of Israel’s cause, not because the Conservatives’ chief fund-raisers have been first the Jew Sir Mick Davis and then the Jew Sir Ehud Sheleg.”
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/10/04/funding-both-sides-how-jewish-money-controls-british-politics/
I don't disagree with anything you have written Mr Gove, but from the perspective of a very small business (highly profitable/great productivity) it would be useful to have a steer on how to avoid the creeping tendency for our customers to insist on foisting their "standards" on us, via the audit chain, that they need to validate their own business.
As an example, we act as specialist sub-contractors for lots of larger companies, who need our quite industrial skills frequently, but who increasingly ask us to complete huge on line questionaires about corruption, race mix or migrant employment, or sex discrimination to qualify us. We have seven employees, all male except one, almost all with a high level of security clearances (Ex-service MOD), and you want my single payroll admin person to comply with 97 companies' audit processes, or pay for theirs (at a cost of approximate £1500 pa) when the value of the work they offer us is rarely more than £2000 per project. Rev up and fuck off, or reach out to develop a more considered approach. It's not going to bother us (the founders of the business) much longer as we are retiring, but we have built an awesome little business, and we'd like to leave it thriving. The work and demand is there, and growing. Brexit has not hurt too much, but the supply chain has slowed down. A less dramatic separation with the SM would have been welcome.
Funding Both Sides: How Jewish Money Controls British Politics . . .
“During the previous Labour government, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were ardent Zionists because they accepted the justice of Israel’s cause, not because Labour’s chief fund-raisers were first the Jew Michael Levy and then the Jew Jonathan Mendelsohn (both are now members of the House of Lords). And during the current Conservative government, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been ardent Zionists because they too accept the justice of Israel’s cause, not because the Conservatives’ chief fund-raisers have been first the Jew Sir Mick Davis and then the Jew Sir Ehud Sheleg.”
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/10/04/funding-both-sides-how-jewish-money-controls-british-politics/
You say that your business is highly profitable. Good for you and your workers. So why exactly are you whinging about the cost filling in a few forms? If you have some moral objection to your customers' requirements, then the answer lies in the colourful phrase in your second paragraph.
Weazel words. Gove has had years to reform. He has meddled and obfuscated not engaged with housebuilders he could have paused nutrient regulation from Natural England for instance. Simon Clarke was much more growth orientated. I was appaeld Gove was put back in charge. Gove talks the talk but seems just concerned with appealing to libdem and nimby to save his southern seat. The best for the Conservative party and growth is meddlers like Gove and his I'll thought out infrastructure levy lose their seats.
Where does closing the bank accounts of Christians and your political opponents fit into this utopian vision?
We are in favour of good things; but, and I make no apologies if this shocks or dismays you, we are also against bad things.
And what if having more of one good thing might lead to having less of another good thing? We are above all else opposed to recognising that that is a possibility. No conservative could even suggest such a thing.
The denial of reality is not merely essential to the Govean view of conservatism; the denial of reality is Govean conservatism. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a speech on the importance of building new homes to write, followed by a busy afternoon of denying planning permission to new homes.
Gove is an utter turd the best thing tories can do his scrape him off their shoe along with the other libdem wannabees
I suspect it’s because (a) it’s more than a few forms; (b) even if it wasn’t, ‘a few forms’ filled in by every business in the UK amounts to an expensive mountain of forms; (c) the information requested is often intrusive, irrelevant or both; and (d) the state bureaucracy that feeds off these forms is bloated to the point of obesity (though, sadly, it never seems to become morbidly obese).
Britain is fit for purpose, British politics is not!
Not much I disagree with here. But why weren't you pushing these things when there was a chance to do something about them? Why aren't you pushing them now? There's still time to legislate.
The cost of filling in a few forms is just the start! After that there's an annual fee to have the client's compliance people check it. On top of ISO9001, and top level cyber-security fees and subs which are a necessary cost of trading, it adds a level of (mostly pointless) bureaucratic waffle to keep a growing army of grey suits in unproductive, well-paid employment. Compliance is strangling small businesses in red tape.
Every single Hospital Trust has a different set of qualification procedures, for example; why not a single standardised NHS contractor register or database?
Weazel words from a con. Gove has had decades to sort out reform take on the nimby and go for growth. Simon Clarke and truss wanted to. Gove has actively obfuscated growth with meddling. Best thing that could happen for the Conservative party is he loses seat to libdem
Well, to go back to the water privatisation, because getting the treasury to sanction money for utilities investment was a hiding to nowhere; the money was always designated for more electorally appealing causes. So, they were privatised to raise money in the open market, whereupon companies saw the appeal of universal need for the service and ignored the obligations that accompanied the revenue stream.... and here we are.
I know, it's highly specific, and most policy making is about writing generalisms. I don't think that luxury exists anymore.
Not bothered about Christians' bank accounts frankly! Take the interest if you have the deposit Mr Walker, and do shop around for the best rate.
fine words that need to actioned