When I ask myself what trajectory this country is on, the most likely answer seems to be Orbán’s Hungary. How much in this thread sounds familiar? 1. The ruling class, wallowing in corruption, enjoys total impunity. Meanwhile, peaceful protest and other freedoms are criminalised.
2. No political scandal is a sacking offence. 3. A complicit media so distorts the reporting of government action that it becomes almost impossible to distinguish truth from lies. 4. Apparently endless rule is sustained by voter suppression and gerrymandering.
5. Politics proceeds by means of the grand gesture. Billions are spent on major infrastructure, while basic services are allowed to wither and die. 6. Public agencies are repurposed to direct money into the hands of chums.
7. People trying to defend minority rights and liberal values are bated and provoked, as the government seeks new enemies and revels in its illiberalism. 8. Policies that would once have made you gasp are normalised, as the frontier of acceptable outrage is constantly extended.
9. Immigrants are demonised and blamed for problems for which they bear no responsibility, even as their numbers fall. 10. The government inventively discovers endless scapegoats for its own failures.
11. Patriotism and flag-waving are used to advance an agenda that destroys the very fabric of public life and the meaning of the nation state as a shared polity belonging to all its citizens. The worse the state of the nation, the more national greatness is invoked.
Any of this ring a bell?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few weeks ago, I tried to contact a Trading Standards Office on behalf of an elderly person who had been ripped off by a conman. No, you can’t do it any more: you have to go through the Citizens Advice Bureau(!). So I filed my complaint with them. Here’s what happened.
Thread/
It was as clear a case as there could be. I had discovered enough about the conman to put the fear of God into him, and he confessed to how he operates, and told me who his partners are. He works with an agency that specialises in preying on elderly, confused people.
He instantly repaid the money. But my interest was in ensuring that he can't do it again. Otherwise, he will continue to prey on other elderly people, who don’t happen to know an investigative journalist.
This moonlighting is profoundly wrong - a direct conflict of interest.
BBC journalists are taking money from the plutocrats and corporations they should be holding to account.
Channel 4 doesn't allow it. Why does the BBC? theguardian.com/media/2021/may…
It's like the revolving door in politics. Even if you haven't yet accepted money from the people you're interviewing, one day you might. That's bound, subconsciously, to affect your judgement.
This money destroys journalists' integrity.
I would never take it. Nor should they.
The first duty of a journalist is to hold power to account.
It's bad enough that most of the media is owned by billionaires, and the BBC is beholden to the government.
But when its journalists take money from powerful people and companies, that completes the loss of integrity.
Why do we allow people to own second homes in the United Kingdom, when so many have none?
Why is a 500% council tax not levied on them, to make them less affordable?
It could have something to do with the fact that so many politicians and senior figures in the media own one.
Second home ownership is destroying communities throughout the coastal and scenic parts of the UK. Anyone can see it. Except those who have one.
While the government refuses to act, we should keep making the case that owning a second home is unethical, and urge those who have one to sell or rent it to people who need a place to live.
When I first started writing about the UK's rainforests, the overwhelming response was disbelief. Because we have lost all but a few tiny fragments, and because of our deeply weird conservation priorities, this rich and wonderful habitat had been almost completely forgotten.
But I've never seen social attitudes change faster than our approach to ecology in the UK. In just a few years, we have started to shed our strange obsession with degraded habitats, to understand ecological history and to embrace #rewilding. It's an astonishing turnaround.
This is such a fascinating paper. Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m.
An environmental disaster? No.
In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why? sciencedirect.com/science/articl…🧵
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*.
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But …
… since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.