1/ Privatisation of the energy by the Government makes this a political issue not. Pressuring politicians and political parties may be more effective than the don't pay campaign. Ultimately we want a political solution renationalisation. Don't pay isn't about that. #dontpayuk
2/ The question then becomes: "what's the best way of pressuring politicians"?
In this sense, the don't the dispersed nature of the private action urged by #dontpayuk is, in a sense the very opposite of the sustained collective pressure needed to secure policy change.
3/ Simply trying to hurt the finances of energy companies - which can be bailed out by government politicians - is both risky and misdirected energy. There is a real chance it will make no difference except to negatively impact the people refusing to pay.
4/ When Unions go on strike, they provide financial support, resources and representation to striking workers. What does #dontpayuk offer?
5/ Vapid assurances by anonymous people who are worried enough about the consequences of their campaign that they refuse to reveal their own names. #dontpayuk
6/6 Finally, it is telling that #dontpayuk were willing to sit down for puff-piece interviews by the BBC and Telegraph but not for a more balanced article by the big issue. Very bad indeed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Yet more on @dontpayuk. Sorry to keep posting about this but it's I feel it's important to do what I can prevent influential people from parroting the utter crap that this awful "campaign" keeps pushing. My sense is they are struggling to cope with the scrutiny... #dontpayuk
2/ The latest nonsense is purveyed through EuroNews. A #Dontpay representative is now telling their audience that it's all fine because socially minded lawyers are in abundance, and ready able and willing to help anyone who gets into trouble with energy bill non payment
3/ Even if you are eligible for legal aid, it might not cover the full cost and there's no guarantee you'll win. In truth, this seems unlikely if people simply cut off Direct Debits and breach contracts without first seeking resolution.
3/ This argument - that @jeremycorbyn is somehow a threat - is repeated in this article by Juliet Samuel, which also references the security services planted story containing the Czech spy allegations: telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/…
1/ There's so much ignorance in this position. For one thing, the West isn't sending weapons to Ukraine "in isolation". It is applying incredibly severe sanctions to Russia, which not only aren't working but are rebounding on the west, damaging its economies.
2/ The more fundamental point is that Ukraine was never going to win against Russia because Russia regards the of Ukrainian NATO membership as an EXISTENTIAL THREAT to its security. That means there is no limit to the efforts it will go to in order to prevent Ukraine joining.
3/ Russia is therefore willing to fully mobilise its population and economy in order to win the war if necessary. There is no scenario in which Ukraine wins. Western supplies of weapons and sanctions have just escalated the conflict, making it more costly for Russia.
1/. @jeremycorbyn's recent comments regarding #Ukraine confirm that he is still a threat to establishment interests. He is always at his best when speaking plainly and freely about international issues...
2/ I wrote some of my recent pieces to highlight that establishment interests aren't only represented by the Tories & right wing Labour but also some who consider themselves allies of Corbyn: The imperialist tendencies within the Labour left...
3/ Which I suspect are already manouvring to "contain" any future Corbyn initiatives on internationalism in particular. I don't have any knowledge of how these moves might be unfolding now, but I suspect it resembles how they have operated in the past. Case in point: Momentum.
1/ I have finally gotten around to flicking through @DerbyChrisW's book 10 Years Hard Labour. lolabooks.eu › products
Ten Years Hard Labour | Chris Williamson | Lola Books. I haven't had the chance to read it in full, so I am just going to give at a glance impressions
2/ It seems to be very good. Given how shabbily he was treated by the Labour Party, it might be expected that the clarity of Williamson's analysis would be obstructed by (justified) personal grievance. His analysis is clear and well argued.
3/ His explanation of what went wrong and what lessons are to be learned from the weaponisation of antisemitism allegations is hard to argue with (to a large extent it supports my own view though coming from a very different experience).