How I wish I hadn’t read this morning’s papers but had restricted myself to this morning’s anodyne print editions: “Newspaper review: Sunak’s ‘bad degree crackdown’ and ‘King Carlos’” (link), but nooo – I had to go and take a quick glance at our ‘quality’ paper! I’m still speechless with fury.

Let me explain: the editors and authors of yon august paper, the ‘Thunderer’, the ‘paper of record’, have lost the plot utterly and thoroughly. It used to be the case that readers knew that the Mirror was a Labour paper, the DM more ‘conservative’, the Guardian was like the Mirror for the Westminster chatterati while the DT was ‘the Tory paper’. The Times however hovered above them all, being sniffily impartial.

No longer. Today’s collection of articles demonstrates that they are more Labour than the Guardian, with the twist that they still sail under the flag of impartiality, only ‘reporting’ the swing in the Nation’s mood – as if!

Let me present you the items which prove my point, starting with a weepy: “Ukrainian refugees: I’d love to stay in Britain but renting is impossible – Families are returning to the war zone they fled due to a lack of government support” (link, paywalled). This piece is garnished with beautiful photos of a beautiful woman, standing with her kids in various places, such as Stonehenge, or on a sandy beach, bewailing the fact that she has had no help from ‘council’.

How many of our downtrodden, inner-city, poverty-stricken natives have been able to afford a trip to Stonehenge? Never mind that – it’s our fault ,and forget about ‘cost-of-living crisis’ because we’re rich. Labour will certainly help. I wonder if the ever so well-paid BBC ‘presenters’ and stars are willing to hand out a bit more of their riches to help ‘teh poor’ … nah, forget it. 

Next we have a report which made me rub my eyes: “Committee says phase out hereditary peers in House of Lords” (link, paywalled). It’s a cross-party committee, innit, only acting because there was this poll which found people didn’t support the HoL any longer. It’s the fault of a) the hereditary peeps – the ‘nobility, for you and me – and b) of Johnson:

“The survey by Opinium for Labour Together suggested that only 20 per cent of the public trust the second chamber to act in the interests of the people, compared to 40 per cent who trust MPs, and 43 per cent councillors.” (link, paywalled)

Oh dear! The fact that most ‘peers’ are former MPs has of course nothing to do with that. We read next that the poll showed that people think the HoL should be abolished by an elected 2nd Chamber. Moreover, the report said “attempts by peers to reduce the size of the second chamber had been stymied by government moves to increase its majority there.” (link, paywalled) – aww, we do believe that, don’t we: turkeys voting for Christmas! And then it becomes truly macabre. The report said that:in the past year the Tories had appointed 88 new peers but only 57 Conservative peers had died or retired.”(link, paywalled). Oh the shame – Tory peers not dying to make room for Labour!

It gets worse. The report also calledfor hereditary peers to be phased out because of the 90 in place 51 sit on the Conservative benches and four on the Labour side.” (link, paywalled) – yes really: scrap the nobility because they don’t vote Labour.  It seems the commission needs remedial lessons in why we have the HoL as well as historical classes on who created the current HoL – a certain Mr T.B. – and in simple arithmetic. Subtract the bad 90 hereditary peers from the 824 and the HoL is miraculously cleansed of Tories.

Surely Labour ‘peers’ will be more trustworthy, correct? This is how far left our institutions have swung: a parliamentary commission wastes time on proposals based on a Labour poll, insinuating that everything should be scrapped because Tory peers don’t die fast enough. That’s not all. In the ‘Comments’ pages Trevor Phillips is in full, ‘red in tooth and claw’ Labour flow: “End inheritance tax and risk a class revolt – The Tories’ mooted pre-election giveaway would upset the social compact in which wealth comes with obligations” (link, paywalled).

What ‘social compact’? The one where suddenly the middle classes are deemed to be ‘rich’, thanks to house price inflation, and have to be made to pay their fair wack? Because the local council taxes they all have to pay simply don’t count? Never mind that those on low income are exempt of this daylight robbery: they have nothing to leave their children and that’s just so unfair!

Funny how this fabulous ‘social contract’ only works in one direction, namely to support Labour policies which are based on taking but not on getting people to work and perhaps manage to accumulate enough to leave to their kids. Mr Phillips doesn’t seem to know about the actualité of who pays this tax. See this:

“The tax is paid on only 4 per cent of estates, mostly by the very wealthy, and raises £7 billion a year the country needs. Getting rid of it will largely benefit only those rich enough to keep a Coutts account. There is more than money at stake here. Inheritance tax is a signal that Britain believes in encouraging social mobility …” (link, paywalled)

What is this ‘social mobility’ of which he speaks? The one  exhibited by all those young people having been taught nothing at all in schools and unis, to prepare them for work? Or those who have a nice life on bennies, some now in their third generation? Or is it the downward ‘social mobility’ where small business owners go bankrupt because they can no longer pay the business rates which are needed to keep our ‘new guests’ in hotels?

I leave you with a final report which illuminates the society we’ve become, where privacy is only accorded to certain ‘celebrities’ (naming no names …):

“A third-party intelligence firm used by high-street banks in the UK gathers data on “adverse media” coverage of customers and social media posts. World-Check Risk Intelligence, which is owned by Refinitiv, a member of the London Stock Exchange Group, helps institutions vet clients in line with finance laws. Its website says it gathers information on “adverse media”, as well as politically exposed persons (PEPs). It also explains it can hold “postings on website, blogs or social media”.” (link, paywalled)

Why are they even allowed to collect such data from websites, blogs and social media? Because of “anti-money laundering regulations’? Really? It includes “customers deemed a reputational risk, […]” (link, paywalled). Blimey – I had no idea that customers would put banks ‘at reputational risk’ by holding certain opinions which those banks wouldn’t even know about if such ‘watchdogs’ didn’t go digging for them!

The thought of these ‘data’, at the moment only being collected and used by banks, becoming accessible to a Labour government, bent on creating a Chinese ‘social score’ for all is sufficient to make me want to scream. And the august Times blithely reports this without one opinion piece denouncing this blatant attempt at social engineering! Do their editors and readers believe they will be exempt?

That’s all I have for today. Frankly, I wish I’d stayed in bed. Blame my collie for having had to get up … Have a good day.