The 21st Century Business Model Ltd

18/12/2024

Merry Christmas 🎄

20/10/2020

Some of you may have seen the linguistic elasticity of Alok Sharma as he spoke to Nick Ferrari on LBC yesterday. It was a car crash of an interview as he described the difference between an 'Australian-style deal' and a 'No Deal' Brexit as “semantics.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/alok-sharma-caught-out-nightmare-22868526

Some of you may have also remembered the affable 'Trevor' from an article I posted several days ago – a Brexiter by some margin, and a Conservative voter to boot, who was angry with Boris Johnson because Trevor didn't vote Conservative in 2019 [having 'voted Labour all his life!!!'] only for Boris Johnson to get 'a deal'.

Imagine being somebody like Trevor, living in Trevor's Wall-E World of apathy, Laz-y-Boys and Happy Meal politics where – since you know everything, you've absolutely no need for libraries, dictionaries, the internet, and certainly no time for 'remoaners' [helpful one and all] pointing him in the right direction to tell him that – actually, an Australian-style deal IS No Deal, and there's absolutely no reason for Trevor to be angry with Boris Johnson.

Yet.

Alas, Trevor was a particularly grumpy Trevor that day. Hmph and indeed, Grr.

But it's interesting because it seems the “semantics” escaped Trevor.

Indeed, Michael Gove's comments on Andrew Marr appeared to escape Trevor as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18102001.pdf [transcript of the interview]

However, they didn't escape hopeless former PM Theresa May – Mrs. Grey herself; a former Prime Minister that this blog likes from a purely longingly masochistic perspective on account of the overarching sense of fear and dread she puts into any potential 'naughty, weak and pathetic' man that dares look at her lest they be turned to a brutalist concrete statue.

Truly an individual so lacking in heart or compassion, so foreboding in her presence, and just so blind cold, and evil, and above all else, mean – just, bloody mean - that even the Marquis de Sade would beg [and beg fruitlessly, he would] for her to be gentle.

Gove appeared in the Commons yesterday discussing the matter of cross-border security and how it wouldn't be impeded by an 'Australian-style' deal [or No Deal]. She was astounded by his ridiculous response.

“What a disgusting, puny little urchin, you are!” - she [didn't] say, but in the spirit of this article, it's all I could imagine her saying.

On Gove's comments yesterday [stating that Britain would be safer from crime and terrorism outside of the EU] as an example, Lord Ricketts, a former national security adviser, ridiculed the claim from Michael Gove. Ricketts said: “He [Gove] knows perfectly well that without a deal the UK will lose access to EU databases and alerting systems. These are used intensively by UK Police. Alternatives will be MUCH slower. In security cooperation, speed=safety.”

The over-riding sense in all of this though, for people like Trevor, or the inordinate amount of people who take daily to Priti Patel's Twitter feed to complain to her about her policies on immigration, is that there's a growing sense that not everything is going swimmingly, and not everything is quite what it seems about Brexit.

Now to this, the obvious thing for me to do would be to laugh – however, I don't laugh, because what reveals itself in all of this, through various accounts from Patel, Alok Sharma, Gove and so on, is actually a bloody tragedy.

But then hasn't this always been the case with Brexit?

For one, there's no point in people arguing over this any more – we have left the EU; so it's not a case of Leave voters reading this saying, “oh you're just bitter remoaners – you lost get over it!”

Cast your minds back to 2016 – in fact, cast them back to even before that in 2013 when Boris Johnson said he would vote to stay in the single market.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/how-boris-johnson-has-changed-his-views-on-europe

Then 'Power of Love' your way Back to the Future 'when Nigel Farage wanted Norway.'

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/11/08/when-he-supported-norway-the-brexit-policy-farage-would-rath

Oh how the times-are-a-changin'.

And so on the matter of me being a 'loser' who needs to get over it; surely the opposite would be a winner celebrating their victory. And yet what, actually, in the last nearly-year, have Leave voters won, that has made their lives any better, that deserves a cause for celebration?

Why come to pages like this, or on other pages, and hand out casual abuse to people like me? I don't care about Brexit any more. The Brexit debate is over . You WON, get over it.

You won your lorry park in Kent:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/17/thousands-call-for-brexit-lorry-park-to-be-named-after-nigel-farage-13436942/

You won your reassurances from the Daily Express to stockpile food [why might that be? Hm, I'm no idea...]:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1326691/brexit-food-shortages-what-to-stockpile-no-deal-brexit

You won your reassurances from ministers [including Gove and Johnson] that food standards would be protected when they... hang on, wait, they rejected the protection as part of the Agricultural Bill?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54506185

You won your reassurances from the Government that the NHS would not be a part of any trade deal when they voted against protecting it by rejecting Clause 17 of the Trade Bill. Hang on, no, that doesn't make sense – why would they say they're going to protect the NHS and then vote against protecting it?

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2020-07-21/the-welsh-mps-who-voted-against-nhs-being-protected-from-foreign-control

Oh but of course, all of these matters above can simply be met with, “yeah, yeah whatever” because deep down the concern was on immigration, wasn't it?

Of course, you've won on that front, haven't you? Well, I'm not sure about that one either when considering figures from ONS statistics dated August 2020, net migration has risen to its highest level since 2016.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/august2020

Look at those big, shiny figures:

715,000 people came here
257,000 were arriving for study
458,000 arriving for work, family or other reasons
403,000 left the UK
And that all important number – 35,099 asylum applications in March 2020 for those unable to make the distinction between migrants and refugees; of approximately 26 million refugees according to UNHCR statistics:

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

A whole 0.13% of the world's refugees “invading” Britain! And we're powerless to stop this “invasion” - prevented by that ghastly thing the world commonly refers to as “international law” - how dare they, those “activist lawyers” that Priti Patel believes you should just go out and happily stab.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/18/top-ministers-urged-priti-patel-to-stop-attacks-on-activist-lawyers

But then international law doesn't matter either, does it? Seemingly knowing it prevents you from getting what you want [whatever that is],you'd happily allow them to get away with breaking it at the expense of Northern Ireland's security– whatever that may be. “F**k the Irish”, you'd say.

And where's the honour or integrity in that?

Where's the value, above all else, in the feeling of victory if you can only achieve it by cheating? “I am victorious, but I had to put a brick in my boxing glove and punch my opponent in the bo****ks to achieve it!”

So of course naturally an individual like Michael Gove would present a meaningless platitude – or slogan, actually – on how robust security is going to be after we leave the EU following the transition period; how better it is going to be – without providing any insight or plans on how exactly he sets out to achieve that.

Though isn't that Brexit all over, with the 'undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed'?

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a loser still trying to 'Remain' in something that I've already left, who fails to appreciate exactly what it is you've won.

19/10/2020

💩💩💩

17/10/2020

💩💩💩

And so the Government spin machine goes to work.

According to the BBC's Reality Check – you remember the BBC; that Leftie-snowflake organisation that also serves dichotomously as a Right-wing mouthpiece for the Government – they say:

“The EU does not have a free trade deal with Australia. They are in negotiations for one, but they currently operate mainly on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.”

“There was an EU-Australia Partnership Framework agreed in 2008, which reduces barriers to trade, but was not a free trade agreement.

So, trading on a similar basis to Australia would be largely the same as trading under WTO rules. In other words, it's another way of saying the UK would leave with no trade deal in place.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45633592

Why doesn't Boris Johnson just say that, then?

I posted up a crass meme yesterday that laid it out in the sense that Boris Johnson promised so much; that the deal was 'Oven Ready', that the deal was set to be 'the easiest in history' to negotiate, and I spoke briefly in the comments about my sheer level of frustration over the entire Brexit debate and how it deflected totally from many, many social issues we faced under David Cameron and Theresa May.

The point being that there are many who would be surprised by the announcement of a No Deal if it were laid out as brazenly as that. Chief among which would be the more pragmatic or Centrist Conservative voters, many of whom did not want No Deal and subscribed to all of the assurances of Boris Johnson when he said he would get one. It's only a small subset of the broader demographic of Leave voters who want 'No Deal'.

So it appears that if Boris Johnson says to those 'pragmatic Conservative voters' that he's going to get a 'deal' with the EU [or an Australian-style deal], and those Conservative voters don't understand what that means, it then creates the problem of people like me trying to educate those who don't understand that 'Australia-style' means 'No Deal'.

Cue arguments - “oh I don't know what to believe”, or “you're just a voice on the internet” etc. They then sail through life unknowing as to what it actually means all because they [in some ways, rightly] questioned the words of somebody online. However true they were.

But it appears to have... well, sort of back-fired in 'certain' online communities.

One of the most magical encounters – I had one with an individual [named Trevor] and it was on a different page to this, who essentially said that he didn't want an Australian-style deal because he wanted to leave without any kind of deal.

Trevor received 62 'likes' for his comment, 10 'love' reacts and 5 'laughing' reacts.

In all of the years I've been having 'ongoing Brexit discussions' in real-life and online, there was none more bizarre, comical and frustrating than me, a 'cautious and sceptical Remain-voter' reassuring a No Deal-begging Brexiter that he was going to get what he wanted.

There's a point looking back as I type that where I think father of Anthropology Herodotus would s**t himself in wonder and amazement at the irony of that.

This man was literally there calling Boris Johnson a traitor. Over the course of the short conversation he revealed that he voted Conservative on the basis that they would eventually leave the EU without a deal [despite saying to other Conservative voters that his deal was “oven ready”].

So I provided him with the BBC link [at the top of this article] describing what an Australia-style deal meant; it's a euphemism, essentially, for 'WTO terms' [17 'laughing' reacts, 2 'likes']. “What did you vote for?” he asked, and so I was open and honest with him and told him that I was a Remain voter [5 'laughing' reacts]. He then accused me of being a “trickster” [23 'likes']; telling me that he didn't trust me and that I wanted to keep us tied into the EU with a deal.

No, I'm just illustrating to you, Trevor, the fact that if you start screaming 'Australian Deal!' rather than 'No Deal!' like you've been doing for the last nearly-5 years, you'd essentially be saying the same thing. And so I wasted time on him providing links [from the Australian side] explaining the perpetual state of negotiations the Australians find themselves in with the EU – this one probably explains it best:

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/system/files/media/documents/2019-04/uap-eu-trade-ebook.pdf

And I left it there never to return. Did he read it? Did he read the BBC article?

From what I gather, no. In fact, he literally told me that he wasn't reading either of them – the BBC link in particular was met with derision, typical of the kind of criticism the BBC faces from both Left and Right.

The moral of this story though, is that if Boris Johnson can't convince the more pragmatic voters what an Australian-style deal means, or what an ardent, Leave-means-Leave, emotionally-minded Brexiter what an Australian-style deal means, what chance does he have of winning the hearts and minds on the issue of Brexit of anybody who still believes it to be the most important constitutional matter in generations?

Of course, what it does – and it's something that I've noticed as well as Michel Barnier – in that the latest round of Brexit hypernormalisation and reality s**tshow drama, is probably to gaslight away from the failings on Covid-19.

https://www.politico.eu/article/barnier-covid-could-have-played-role-in-uk-brexit-strategy-shift/

One suspects the studious EU negotiators to see Brexit negotiations totally for what they are; a crap, Nixonian game of brinkmanship that leads [almost by accident] to a No Deal outcome, and any eventual narrative [as discussed in the 'Reasonable Worst Case Scenario' or 'Yellowhammer' documents] can be deflected on to the EU's intransigence. And so what we suffer [as per 'Yellowhammer'] will be less about what Boris Johnson failed to negotiate and more about the problems 'those fascists we liberated' over in the EU [or whatever] have left us with.

When Boris Johnson discusses the concept of an Australian-style deal, what he means to say is a perpetual and ongoing negotiation that kicks the can down the road on the matter of trade characterised by drip-fed mini deals leading ultimately to a final, all-encompassing trade deal in around 5 to 10 years time. This is not the 'oven ready' deal he promised within a year – remember, it was the Conservatives that set this timeline.

It is, however, the WTO terms he said would be a “failure of statecraft” as he stood alongside former Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar last year in Dublin.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49608822
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/boris-johnson-urges-eu-to-avoid-failure-of-statecraft-as-he-sets-out-brexit-backstop-alternative

The problem is, people like the aforementioned Trevor, and those who 'liked' and 'loved' his comment respectively, don't seem to understand that.

It's important not to judge people like Trevor, however. As I say, this is a 'hearts and minds' argument that I spoke about the other day in that while it can occasionally be funny, or “comical” as I described earlier in this article, it's also similarly a test of your patience that should never resort to name-calling or insults, however testing it may be.

All you can do – all I can do – is provide information to 'these people'; it's obviously then left up to them to decide what they do with it. The problem is, if you are this patient individual, can you ever rest assured knowing you tried your best?

Many will blame people like Trevor totally. I take a different stance. I forgive people like Trevor. I blame “truth twisters” like Boris Johnson instead.

13/10/2020

💩💩💩

Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said last night:

“The revelations in this paper are alarming. The fact that the Prime Minister chose to publish it an hour after his press conference is yet more evidence that he is treating the British people with contempt. Labour warned earlier that the restrictions announced by the Prime Minister may not be sufficient. “The Government now needs to urgently explain why it ignored its own scientists and what it will be doing to get control of the virus.”

Ashworth here is referring to the SAGE minutes.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925853/S0768_Fifty-eighth_SAGE_meeting_on_Covid-19.pdf

Last month, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies [SAGE] advised that the Government should implement a short “circuit-breaker” as well as banning all contact between different households and closing all bars, restaurants and gyms, and they also warned that single interventions are “unlikely” to stop the exponential rise in coronavirus cases.

It advises:

“A package of interventions will need to be adopted to prevent this exponential rise in cases. Single interventions are unlikely to be able to reduce incidence. If schools are to remain open, then a wide range of other measures will be required.

The shortlist of non-pharmaceutical interventions that should be considered for immediate introduction include:

A circuit-breaker (short period of lockdown) to return incidence to low levels.
Advice to work from home for all those that can
Banning all contact within the home with members of other households (except members of a support bubble).
Closure of all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms, and personal services (e.g. hairdressers).
All university and college teaching to be online unless absolutely essential.”

These documents, strangely, were released only hours after Boris Johnson gave his speech to the public where he spoke about the new restrictions in place.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52530518

The key words used by SAGE in this document are “for immediate introduction” - this was in September, by the way. The 21st to be exact.

Indeed, Prof. Calum Semple, professor of child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool and a consultant respiratory paediatrician at Alder Hey Children's Hospital Liverpool UK, and also an advisor to the Goverment as part of the SAGE committee said yesterday:

“I’m going to be difficult and say no, I think we’re a little late to react. I and other people who were advocating for quite stringent severe local interventions where necessary three to four weeks ago, our fear is now that we’re in another place now, and that we’re going to need a much firmer intervention perhaps.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sage-scientist-new-restrictions-too-late-a4569051.html

The SAGE document above verifies this approach the Government's advisors were hoping for.

Now...

There are two approaches here.

The first is that on Wednesday at PMQs, the opening question from Keir Starmer should be:

“Despite all of your previous statements where you claimed to be following the science, according to this document in September from SAGE – your scientific advisors, Prime Minister, that asked 'for immediate introduction' of 'stringent measures' 3 weeks ago, you didn't implement any of them apart from a u-turn on workers returning to the office. Why did you ignore the scientific advice, Prime Minister?”

We've seen this before. This is not uncharacteristic of Boris Johnson.

As I type this, the words of Prof. Neil Ferguson [another former Government scientific advisor] and Prof. John Edmunds [current member of the SAGE Committee] resound around my head – both of them stated unequivocally and on record that if the Government were sooner to act in March could have halved the death toll, which as it stands is more than 58,000.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-excess-deaths-involving-covid-19-rise-for-third-week-in-a-row-ons-says-12091464

Neil Ferguson's statements: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/198155/neil-ferguson-talks-modelling-lockdown-scientific/

John Edmunds' statement: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52955034

And so from this, we can deduce that the political decision-making of Boris Johnson and the Conservatives is responsible for the deaths of at least 29,000 people.

The second approach – which may never come although I sincerely hope it goes; least of all for all of the members of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Group – is that when an inquiry actually happens, this document from Sage is evidence, frankly. Of a crime. The SAGE documents are there in the public domain for everybody to see and read, and not just from a political point-scoring perspective but also a legal one.

Under oath, the Prime Minister should be forced to stand there and justify why – on one hand, he has repeatedly said that he was following the scientific advice but then as it transpired, it appeared that Boris Johnson did not follow it until a time as and when it suited him, or perhaps his political and ideological agenda.

This is negligence, surely?

And so whatever happens over the coming weeks, if or when the virus grows in terms of number of infections and inevitably the death toll sadly increases, we can [as we have before] turn back to this document – this article perhaps – as a point of reference and say, “when Boris Johnson was told to act, he didn't.”

Following this, we can then refer to individuals like Prof. Calum Semple, Prof. Neil Ferguson, Prof. John Edmunds and Sir Chris Whitty, the latter whose comments were perhaps the most sobering of all. Whitty said that he was confident that the baseline Tier 3 measures will fail to control the spread of coronavirus in very high-risk areas and literally signed off on a set of measures he knows will not succeed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54505193

And so what he states there almost echoes the words of Prof. Calum Semple, short of saying, “we're too late.”

As stated yesterday, deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van Tam spoke at the weekend about the 'grave' situation we faced heading into the Autumn and Winter, and advisors spoke as early as July on what the Government needed to do to step up preparations for the Autumn and Winter months, with a report commissioned by Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, released by the Academy of Medical Sciences stating that an estimated 120,000 people could die in the coming months.

https://news.sky.com/story/second-coronavirus-spike-this-winter-could-be-more-serious-than-the-first-top-scientists-warn-12027912

The ultimate question however, from all of this, is knowing what we know now, is what will be the likely reward of this failure to act sooner?

It's a rhetorical question. I neither want to see it, nor do I want to know.

12/10/2020

💩💩💩

Here are three stories to think about.

Imagine you're the Home Secretary and for weeks, you've been posting tweets, videos courtesy of the Home Office and even using your appearance at the Conservative Party conference, to take aim squarely at so-called “activist lawyers” who are preventing you from executing your plans to curb immigration.

The motivation for doing this appears to be win over and reassure the more 'far right elements' in society who are becoming increasingly exasperated by the constant stream of videos courtesy of Nigel Farage and Britain First, and seeing you, Home Secretary, as being incapable. They look to you for an answer, and when you provide one, you say that it's not your fault. You say it's “activist lawyers” stopping you from giving them what they want.

These 'far right elements' believe you.

Emboldened and enabled by your constant finger-pointing, one particularly angry yet avid fan of yours armed with large knife enters a London law firm, carrying a confederate flag and far-right literature, and launches a “violent, racist attack” that injures a staff member before being overwhelmed.

Imagine also that luminaries within the Law Society write to you and explain the incident, pleading with you to desist from making these kind of attacks in public so as to curb the threat posed to these people working within the legal profession, but rather than acknowledging them, rather than changing course, you not only 'double down' on your rhetoric but rope the Prime Minister into the debate as well.

It shouldn't be too hard to imagine for Priti Patel because not only is she aware of this but all of the above actually happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/10/lawyers-claim-knife-attack-at-law-firm-was-inspired-by-priti-patels-rhetoric

Imagine you're the Secretary for the Department of Health and Social Care.

For months, you have been reiterating the Government message on tackling coronavirus and recently, your Government has introduced measures that say pubs should introduce a 10pm curfew.

Around the country, thousands of pubs have been kicking people out onto the streets of towns and cities across the UK at 10pm, causing a wave of patrons to stroll out onto the streets all around the UK, all at the same time, exacerbating the risk of transmission and eliminating the possibility of any meaningful contact tracing.

Imagine then that you don't feel as though this rule should apply to you and you are seen by a number of witnesses at 10:25pm, including a Senior MP within your own party, having ordered some wine in the Commons bar, and said, “The drinks are on me - but Public Health England are in charge of the payment methodology so I will not be paying anything” on the same day [Monday] that it was revealed that Public Health England are reported to have lost 16,000 positive cases of Covid-19 and an estimated 48,000-50,000 contacts.

It shouldn't be too hard to imagine for Matt Hancock because this is reported to have actually happened.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-matt-hancock-denies-breaching-10pm-drinking-curfew-in-commons-bar-12101358

Imagine being the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

According to the government’s own model for awarding funding, Newark-on-Trent [your own constituency] is not an area of “high priority” for investment. However, because you jointly made all decisions on which towns received funding to boost “regeneration”, “improved transport” and “skills and culture”, and decided alongside the Minister of State for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth at the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, that you would award your own constituency £25 million from the controversial Towns Fund despite official figures showing it is less deprived than neighbouring areas that have been overlooked.

It was also documented that of the 101 towns that came as part of the Towns Fund – a £3.6 billion scheme pledged by the Conservatives to “level up” deprived towns in the UK, 61 of those seats [according to analysis] were in marginal, Tory-held seats, and that the fund represented spending of taxpayers’ money for party political purposes.

This comes less than a year after you, as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, presided over a scandal in which you granted planning permission for a £1bn property scheme two weeks before the developer donated £12,000 to the Conservative party, which invariably saved Richard Desmond [the aforementioned Tory donor] £45 million in tax and prevented 'Marxists from getting the doe [sic]'

It shouldn't be too hard for Robert Jenrick to imagine any of the above because it actually happened.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-labour-demands-probe-into-housing-secretary-role-s-in-allocation-of-funding-to-his-constituency-b948756.html

https://inews.co.uk/news/robert-jenrick-probe-towns-fund-constituency-711476

Yet despite these three stories being documented, reported on and published, on one hand, nothing actually happens as a result. The three ministers above all remain in cabinet positions and will remain in them into the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, according to a recent poll conducted via Opinium Research, and consciously I'm aware that polls are rather tenuous things, and samples designed to influence rather than convey the true feeling amongst the UK electorate, the Conservative Party [which all of these ministers represent] are tied with Labour in the polls.

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1315004558582702081

All of the three stories too, are sackable offences. If not 'sackable', then at the very least a resigning matter.

Such incompetence, such lack of integrity, such hypocrisy, such lack of ownership, such utter disregard, and perhaps in some way such corruption, and nothing happens.

We turn to the Cummings story from May again.

Immediately, this man's role in the Government should have resulted in his sacking. There's no way of defending it apart from using the Cummings line that any man in his position would have done what he did, and people need to remember Caroline Flack and “be kind” – and we wouldn't have done what he did because the guidelines were in place and many [to their credit] followed the guidelines as written.

In a rare move of compliance that most were happy to abide, the country listened with open minds to what the Government had to say, and agreed, regardless of political persuasion, followed the Government guidelines.

Approaching nearly 150 days since the story broke in The Guardian and the Daily Mirror, nothing has happened.

Ownership of all of these failings [though not-so in Cummings' case] falls on the responsibility, ultimately, of the constituents of Witham, West Suffolk and Newark-on-Trent. These people elect these individuals [Patel, Hancock and Jenrick, respectively] to represent them and yet if those voters in those constituencies saw these stories, how would they feel?

Again I ask the question, are their lives any better as a result? Can these stories be so easily ignored, or even defended? Is there not some point where these people, with their morals, with their souls, with any conscionable fibre of their being, turn to these stories, read them, and say, “enough is enough – they do not represent us”?

When you read these stories, what does that say about the people of Witham, West Suffolk and Newark-on-Trent if they do indeed fail to say 'enough is enough'?

Because it's obvious that the Government intend to do nothing.

I've mentioned it before in previous articles – Suella Braverman in Fareham, Alok Sharma in Reading West, Gavin Williamson in South Staffordshire – and all of these are ministers who have presided over such incompetence that somehow, nobody in any of these 6 constituencies decide 'enough is enough' and tell their MPs that they do not represent them any more.

In Patel's case, it goes beyond simply the matter of resignation.

The reports alone should be enough for anybody in the legal profession to consider her language as incitement to violence, and with her constructive dismissal case on the horizon [making her the first cabinet minister in history to stand in the dock at an employment tribunal], the future should [SHOULD!] look bleak for Priti Patel.

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/priti-patel-could-be-first-secretary-of-state-to-appear-at-employment-tribunal

But alas, 3 stories like those of Priti Patel, Matt Hancock and Robert Jenrick are revealed in a single evening. Will anything actually be done? Will those constituents listen?

I'd hope so. Though I'd also highly doubt it.