Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Section_31]

Stu or Sec., will either of you be going to the anti-cut demo on 26th March? Might be up for a swift half a shandy with lime cordial in it if you're about?

 

I'm going to try and get down there on the union's tit I think and 'cover it' if poss as best I can, will give you a shout if I do pal!

[King Emlyn]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now because I know from past discussions that you're an extremely sharp lad, I don't know why - maybe you're bored, but you know what and who my post was aimed at.

 

 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm going to try and get down there on the union's tit I think and 'cover it' if poss as best I can, will give you a shout if I do pal!

 

I'll cover the cost of the solicitors and any medical bills we incur.

[dennis tooth]

So you hate the upper class (presumably), the middle class and the scum who had ideas above their station and started teaching despite being morons who got degrees from polytechnics - the cheek. Who don't you hate?

 

While we are here, for the record I hate midgets. I can't stand a muthafucking midget.

 

(This applies to any treacherous short people also, you're sitting there think of ways to stab me in the back don't bother, I'm onto it.)

[TheBitch]

 

Go to interviews until you get one then.

 

*shakes head*

[Mr T]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now because I know from past discussions that you're an extremely sharp lad, I don't know why - maybe you're bored, but you know what and who my post was aimed at.

 

 

I think my post was a decent synthesis of what your more extended post said, or which points did I misconstrue?

 

I know you probably didn't mean those things to such an extent (all that hate) but it does seem to be a general theme on here. Basically it seems to me that you take it as given, an axiom, that anyone with a different opinion on how society should be organised is evil and has evil intentions. You then construct most of your ideas on this unexamined axiom. I suggest to you that this is not the case. Simply put, it is possible for reasonable men to examine the evidence and come to different conclusions.

[lifetime fan]

Another example of how fucking shit the Tories are. Our local authority is having to slash 120 jobs to save cash, and have had to merge its child protection department with a neighbouring council - a Tory council - that new department will be headed by a private sector consultant being paid £1,100 a day.

 

Therein lies Tory logic. Slash the 'wasteful' state workers, and bring in the private sector becaus it's more 'organised' and 'dynamic', when in actual fact what happens is you lay 100 mothers with kids off and hire some bespectacled cunt and pay him well over the odds while services go to shit.

 

I fucking hate the Tories, they are the most disgusting thing about this country - I hate them, and everything and everybody they represent. Gladly, the middle and upper-middle classes who are their rank and file will soon suffer for the choices they've made, it will not be the working class like last time - because there is no working class left - just a mass of polytechnic educated morons who 'fell into' jobs like teaching and the police, hated Brown because he couldn't foxtrot and tango, and now are about to lose their overpriced homes. When it all goes tits up, the Tory elite will merely withdraw to Dubai to work for their dads' publishing houses. And I will laugh.

 

Fuck them - let them burn.

 

Fucking brilliant post Sec but I'd suggest there will be a slight change over the term of the parliament.

 

The tories are cunts (and many are idiots) of that there is no doubt but there is still a difference between an idiot and someone completely fucking stupid.

 

The first half of the parliament the tories will fuck over virtually everyone bar their very, very bestest (richest) bumchums.

 

Then they will be trying to bribe their 'electoral base' into giving them a second term. Of that there is no doubt.

 

A second term means a bigger thank you (back hander) off their puppet masters.

[Thants]

Sorry, can't see this on here.

To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

'I would love to see tax reductions," David Cameron told the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend, "but when you're borrowing 11% of your GDP, it's not possible to make significant net tax cuts. It just isn't." Oh no? Then how come he's planning the biggest and crudest corporate tax cut in living memory?

 

If you've heard nothing of it, you're in good company. The obscure adjustments the government is planning to the tax acts of 1988 and 2009 have been missed by almost everyone – and are, anyway, almost impossible to understand without expert help. But as soon as you grasp the implications, you realise that a kind of corporate coup d'etat is taking place.

 

Like the dismantling of the NHS and the sale of public forests, no one voted for this measure, as it wasn't in the manifestos. While Cameron insists that he occupies the centre ground of British politics, that he shares our burdens and feels our pain, he has quietly been plotting with banks and businesses to engineer the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle to the ultra-rich that this country has seen in a century. The latest heist has been explained to me by the former tax inspector, now a Private Eye journalist, Richard Brooks and current senior tax staff who can't be named. Here's how it works.

 

At the moment tax law ensures that companies based here, with branches in other countries, don't get taxed twice on the same money. They have to pay only the difference between our rate and that of the other country. If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia, then shifts the money over here, it should pay a further 18% in the UK, to match our rate of 28%. But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches.

 

Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland. The exemption applies solely to "large and medium companies": it is not available for smaller firms. The government says it expects "large financial services companies to make the greatest use of the exemption regime". The main beneficiaries, in other words, will be the banks.

 

But that's not the end of it. While big business will be exempt from tax on its foreign branch earnings, it will, amazingly, still be able to claim the expense of funding its foreign branches against tax it pays in the UK. No other country does this. The new measures will, as we already know, accompany a rapid reduction in the official rate of corporation tax: from 28% to 24% by 2014. This, a Treasury minister has boasted, will be the lowest rate "of any major western economy". By the time this government is done, we'll be lucky if the banks and corporations pay anything at all. In the Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron said: "What I want is tax revenue from the banks into the exchequer, so we can help rebuild this economy." He's doing just the opposite.

 

These measures will drain not only wealth but also jobs from the UK. The new legislation will create a powerful incentive to shift business out of this country and into nations with lower corporate tax rates. Any UK business that doesn't outsource its staff or funnel its earnings through a tax haven will find itself with an extra competitive disadvantage. The new rules also threaten to degrade the tax base everywhere, as companies with headquarters in other countries will demand similar measures from their own governments.

 

So how did this happen? You don't have to look far to find out. Almost all the members of the seven committees the government set up "to provide strategic oversight of the development of corporate tax policy" are corporate executives. Among them are representatives of Vodafone, Tesco, BP, British American Tobacco and several of the major banks: HSBC, Santander, Standard Chartered, Citigroup, Schroders, RBS and Barclays.

 

I used to think of such processes as regulatory capture: government agencies being taken over by the companies they were supposed to restrain. But I've just read Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I'm not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world's tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control. If Hosni Mubarak has passed his alleged $70bn through British banks, the Egyptians won't see a piastre of it.

 

Reading Treasure Islands, I have realised that injustice of the kind described in this column is no perversion of the system; it is the system. Tony Blair came to power after assuring the City of his benign intentions. He then deregulated it and cut its taxes. Cameron didn't have to assure it of anything: his party exists to turn its demands into public policy. Our ministers are not public servants. They work for the people who fund their parties, run the banks and own the newspapers, shielding them from their obligations to society, insulating them from democratic challenge.

 

Our political system protects and enriches a fantastically wealthy elite, much of whose money is, as a result of their interesting tax and transfer arrangements, in effect stolen from poorer countries, and poorer citizens of their own countries. Ours is a semi-criminal money-laundering economy, legitimised by the pomp of the lord mayor's show and multiple layers of defence in government. Politically irrelevant, economically invisible, the rest of us inhabit the margins of the system. Governments ensure that we are thrown enough scraps to keep us quiet, while the ultra-rich get on with the serious business of looting the global economy and crushing attempts to hold them to account.

 

And this government? It has learned the lesson that Thatcher never grasped. If you want to turn this country into another Mexico, where the ruling elite wallows in unimaginable, state-facilitated wealth while the rest can go to hell, you don't declare war on society, you don't lambast single mothers or refuse to apologise for Bloody Sunday. You assuage, reassure, conciliate, emote. Then you shaft us.

[lifetime fan]

In it together.

 

Prick.

[Section_31]

It's actually becoming terrifying now, they're dismantling things that can never be repaired. Anyone involved at ground level at the PCTs etc -and I can vouch for this - have absolutely no fucking clue what's going on. Back of the fag packet politics.

[lifetime fan]

It's actually becoming terrifying now, they're dismantling things that can never be repaired. Anyone involved at ground level at the PCTs etc -and I can vouch for this - have absolutely no fucking clue what's going on. Back of the fag packet politics.

 

I've told our coalition cheer leader that mobility benefits are being cut already. 6 cases aren't enough, he needs it in a newspaper to believe it.

[Strontium]

It's what a lot of people on the right want, Sec. They want to see these 'scum' who have the cheek to take 'their' wages to do a full week of work for their benefit. I bet you that Stronts, even if he doesn't admit it now, doesn't think it's a bad idea to make it happen.

 

 

I don't think anyone's advocating forcing people to work for benefits are they, just giving them the option of getting unpaid experience. I don't have a problem with that in principle, though I'm not as cynical as most here about the government's motives (I think Iain Duncan Smith actually does give a shit).

 

Like it or not, working for free is a great way of getting your foot in the door as it shows willing. It's also already a reality for lots of us. When I was a journo I had to work almost 6 months unpaid before they gave me a salary (I quit after a year for the better pay of the civil service, ho ho). My girlfriend's cousin worked unpaid for a year in recruitment.

 

In all honesty, what is wrong with a big public sector if it keeps people working and able to buy consumer products, homes, cars, go out to pubs and enjoy meals out - you know - the private sector.

 

 

The thing about the public sector is that all its income originates with the private sector, because the private sector is what produces stuff. If you were being controversial, you would say that the public sector parasitises the private sector. Which is fine to an extent, because you need a public sector to do stuff the private sector won't do, but right now our public sector is bigger than our private sector, and that's not sustainable.

 

The private sector is global and increasingly no longer needs people. People are not part of its equation, only the bottom line. When HMV goes tits up in favour of online shopping, and those automated checkouts in Morrisons and Tesco replace the checkout girls, what happens then?

 

 

Come on. The private sector always needs people to consume its offerings. And when old jobs become obsolete, new ones arise in its place. This country seemed to get over the loss of blacksmiths and chimney sweeps from our high streets okay.

 

Sorry, can't see this on here.

To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland.

 

 

I don't know anything about this tax change, about whether it's a good thing or not, but if you're arguing against it like good old George is, a surefire way of shooting yourself in the foot is to point out that the only other country with laws like this is Switzerland, which enjoys one of the highest living standards on the planet. It's obviously not doing them much harm, is it?

[lifetime fan]

if you're arguing against it like good old George is, a surefire way of shooting yourself in the foot is to point out that the only other country with laws like this is Switzerland, which enjoys one of the highest living standards on the planet. It's obviously not doing them much harm, is it?

 

Nazi gold didn't do them much harm either did it?

[The Bugged Out]

March 26th will be fantastic. We are travelling down on the Friday and having a night on the lash with a load of comrades from various unions. Should be ace.

[piscinin]

Sorry, can't see this on here.

To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

'I would love to see tax reductions," David Cameron told the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend, "but when you're borrowing 11% of your GDP, it's not possible to make significant net tax cuts. It just isn't." Oh no? Then how come he's planning the biggest and crudest corporate tax cut in living memory?

 

If you've heard nothing of it, you're in good company. The obscure adjustments the government is planning to the tax acts of 1988 and 2009 have been missed by almost everyone – and are, anyway, almost impossible to understand without expert help. But as soon as you grasp the implications, you realise that a kind of corporate coup d'etat is taking place.

 

Like the dismantling of the NHS and the sale of public forests, no one voted for this measure, as it wasn't in the manifestos. While Cameron insists that he occupies the centre ground of British politics, that he shares our burdens and feels our pain, he has quietly been plotting with banks and businesses to engineer the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle to the ultra-rich that this country has seen in a century. The latest heist has been explained to me by the former tax inspector, now a Private Eye journalist, Richard Brooks and current senior tax staff who can't be named. Here's how it works.

 

At the moment tax law ensures that companies based here, with branches in other countries, don't get taxed twice on the same money. They have to pay only the difference between our rate and that of the other country. If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia, then shifts the money over here, it should pay a further 18% in the UK, to match our rate of 28%. But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches.

 

Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland. The exemption applies solely to "large and medium companies": it is not available for smaller firms. The government says it expects "large financial services companies to make the greatest use of the exemption regime". The main beneficiaries, in other words, will be the banks.

 

But that's not the end of it. While big business will be exempt from tax on its foreign branch earnings, it will, amazingly, still be able to claim the expense of funding its foreign branches against tax it pays in the UK. No other country does this. The new measures will, as we already know, accompany a rapid reduction in the official rate of corporation tax: from 28% to 24% by 2014. This, a Treasury minister has boasted, will be the lowest rate "of any major western economy". By the time this government is done, we'll be lucky if the banks and corporations pay anything at all. In the Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron said: "What I want is tax revenue from the banks into the exchequer, so we can help rebuild this economy." He's doing just the opposite.

 

These measures will drain not only wealth but also jobs from the UK. The new legislation will create a powerful incentive to shift business out of this country and into nations with lower corporate tax rates. Any UK business that doesn't outsource its staff or funnel its earnings through a tax haven will find itself with an extra competitive disadvantage. The new rules also threaten to degrade the tax base everywhere, as companies with headquarters in other countries will demand similar measures from their own governments.

 

So how did this happen? You don't have to look far to find out. Almost all the members of the seven committees the government set up "to provide strategic oversight of the development of corporate tax policy" are corporate executives. Among them are representatives of Vodafone, Tesco, BP, British American Tobacco and several of the major banks: HSBC, Santander, Standard Chartered, Citigroup, Schroders, RBS and Barclays.

 

I used to think of such processes as regulatory capture: government agencies being taken over by the companies they were supposed to restrain. But I've just read Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I'm not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world's tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control. If Hosni Mubarak has passed his alleged $70bn through British banks, the Egyptians won't see a piastre of it.

 

Reading Treasure Islands, I have realised that injustice of the kind described in this column is no perversion of the system; it is the system. Tony Blair came to power after assuring the City of his benign intentions. He then deregulated it and cut its taxes. Cameron didn't have to assure it of anything: his party exists to turn its demands into public policy. Our ministers are not public servants. They work for the people who fund their parties, run the banks and own the newspapers, shielding them from their obligations to society, insulating them from democratic challenge.

 

Our political system protects and enriches a fantastically wealthy elite, much of whose money is, as a result of their interesting tax and transfer arrangements, in effect stolen from poorer countries, and poorer citizens of their own countries. Ours is a semi-criminal money-laundering economy, legitimised by the pomp of the lord mayor's show and multiple layers of defence in government. Politically irrelevant, economically invisible, the rest of us inhabit the margins of the system. Governments ensure that we are thrown enough scraps to keep us quiet, while the ultra-rich get on with the serious business of looting the global economy and crushing attempts to hold them to account.

 

And this government? It has learned the lesson that Thatcher never grasped. If you want to turn this country into another Mexico, where the ruling elite wallows in unimaginable, state-facilitated wealth while the rest can go to hell, you don't declare war on society, you don't lambast single mothers or refuse to apologise for Bloody Sunday. You assuage, reassure, conciliate, emote. Then you shaft us.

 

That's Daily Mail level reporting that is. Used to be you could tell the difference between the tabloids and broadsheets. Not anymore. This is the kind of one-sided hyperbole I used to only see on these American talking heads shows. Seems you lot have now imported that mentality too.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I don't think anyone's advocating forcing people to work for benefits are they, just giving them the option of getting unpaid experience. I don't have a problem with that in principle, though I'm not as cynical as most here about the government's motives (I think Iain Duncan Smith actually does give a shit).

 

Like it or not, working for free is a great way of getting your foot in the door as it shows willing. It's also already a reality for lots of us. When I was a journo I had to work almost 6 months unpaid before they gave me a salary (I quit after a year for the better pay of the civil service, ho ho). My girlfriend's cousin worked unpaid for a year in recruitment.

 

I don't disagree with any of that. And you're right that this plan isn't about advocating forced labour. I was replying directly to Sec's question of 'how long before it becomes compulsory'. Lots on the right want that sort of thing.

 

Offering the option of unpaid work is fine, it happens now to a lesser extent, but if their plan is to cut so hard that at least 1m more people are going to be jobless, then to create/use private companies to complete that work with unpaid volunteers, then it's pretty horrible. That's what the 'Big Society' is all about, too.

 

You advocate a smaller state and, although I disagree with it, that's a perfectly legitimate view. However, you surely don't want that smaller state at a cost to people's welfare? Shrinking the state, putting people out of work and then getting those unemployed to work in a similar job for free is something that will have business owners in raptures. Who doesn't want free labour in order to make more profit from it? It's great for those donating to the Conservative party, but it's not so great for those being taken advantage of.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's Daily Mail level reporting that is. Used to be you could tell the difference between the tabloids and broadsheets. Not anymore. This is the kind of one-sided hyperbole I used to only see on these American talking heads shows. Seems you lot have now imported that mentality too.

 

On the basis that it's not reporting at all, you're entirely wrong. It's an opinion piece and therefore, somewhat shockingly, contains opinions. ;)

[Ginny]

Your two posts have been woefully ignorant of the situation, and of the wider reality. You could, quite literally, be going to interviews for the rest of your life at that rate. Calling the jobless 'lazy fucking mummies [sic] boy cunts' is pretty ridiculous.

 

All I know is a lost my job and hjad another withhin a week. I sent out 10 cv's a day and made 10 phone calls a day. Not once did I blame anyone else for my situation. I'd like to see what half the people on here who are claiming there is no jobs do with their day. Am sick of this victim mentality. Its makes me queasy

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

All I know is a lost my job and hjad another withhin a week.

 

Congratulations. If you try step outside your world of anecdotal evidence being applicable to everybody in the country, it might widen your perspective.

 

I sent out 10 cv's a day and made 10 phone calls a day. Not once did I blame anyone else for my situation. I'd like to see what half the people on here who are claiming there is no jobs do with their day. Am sick of this victim mentality. Its makes me queasy

 

In your world, if you've not got a job it's because you're lazy. Based on what? Your own experience? You've got to accept the fact the other people might have a different experience to you. Other people are trying far harder than you did, but still can't get a job.

 

It's out of touch with reality to suggest it's simply laziness. There is a great many people out there - often highly qualified, experienced and motivated - and they can't find jobs.

[piscinin]

On the basis that it's not reporting at all, you're entirely wrong. It's an opinion piece and therefore, somewhat shockingly, contains opinions. ;)

 

That's Daily Mail level bullshit that is. Used to be you could tell the difference between the tabloids and broadsheets. Not anymore. This is the kind of one-sided hyperbole I used to only see on these American talking heads shows. Seems you lot have now imported that mentality too.

 

Better?

 

Wish I were a pedant on the internet. The fun I could have.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's Daily Mail level bullshit that is. Used to be you could tell the difference between the tabloids and broadsheets. Not anymore. This is the kind of one-sided hyperbole I used to only see on these American talking heads shows. Seems you lot have now imported that mentality too.

 

Better?

 

Wish I were a pedant on the internet. The fun I could have.

 

Not really any better, no. It's still a simplistic and derisory statement without addressing any of the issues in the opinion piece. Maybe you'd like to counter some of the points made by Monbiot, rather than just dismissing it, somewhat ironically I might add, as 'Daily Mail level bullshit'.

 

I'm not being pedantic, I just dislike otherwise intelligent posters posting obtuse, overly simplistic nonsense without any effort made to address or contest the points raised by the material they're criticising.

[Thants]

 

 

 

I don't know anything about this tax change, about whether it's a good thing or not, but if you're arguing against it like good old George is, a surefire way of shooting yourself in the foot is to point out that the only other country with laws like this is Switzerland, which enjoys one of the highest living standards on the planet. It's obviously not doing them much harm, is it?

 

Oh the rich are certainly richer in Switzerland, that's for sure.

 

The poor however tell a different story.

Slightly less working poor in Switzerland - humanrights.ch

[piscinin]

Not really any better, no. It's still a simplistic and derisory statement without addressing any of the issues in the opinion piece. Maybe you'd like to counter some of the points made by Monbiot, rather than just dismissing it, somewhat ironically I might add, as 'Daily Mail level bullshit'.

 

I'm not being pedantic, I just dislike otherwise intelligent posters posting obtuse, overly simplistic nonsense without any effort made to address or contest the points raised by the material they're criticising.

 

Look mate the concept I was communicating was a very simple one. Article.shite.one-sided. It's a very simple concept to start with and doesn't appear to be to be in any way obtuse or over-simplified. Hell, I even provided an example for the hard of understanding.

 

Now if you would like to know about something that I didn't comment on, for example, WHY i reached that conclusion then I would advise you to follow best practices and ask a question like "Why do you think that?". In my experience it's far more successful in eliciting the type of response you seem to feel entitled to than performing semantic shenanigans on the sense of the word "reporting".

[Thants]

Revealed: how the City bankrolls Tory party - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

 

Revealed: how the City bankrolls Tory party

Donations from financiers quadruple in five years

 

By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor

Wednesday, 9 February 2011SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE

REX FEATURES

Tory donors (from left to right): Financier David Rowland and hedge fund managers, Michael Hintze and John Wood

 

 

The Conservative Party has become reliant on bankers, hedge fund managers and private equity moguls for more than half its annual income, an independent analysis of Tory finances has revealed. Since David Cameron became Conservative leader in December 2005, the amount of money the City has given to bankroll the Tories has gone up fourfold, to £11.4m a year. Over those five years, the City has donated more than £42m to the party.

 

The research, conducted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, highlights how reliant the party has become on the City at a time when David Cameron and George Osborne are under pressure to reform the financial sector.

 

Since Mr Cameron assumed the leadership, the Conservative Party has become twice as dependent on City funding: from 25 per cent of its total donations to nearly 51 per cent in 2010.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Look mate the concept I was communicating was a very simple one. Article.shite.one-sided. It's a very simple concept to start with and doesn't appear to be to be in any way obtuse or over-simplified. Hell, I even provided an example for the hard of understanding.

 

I think your shallow criticism is obtuse and oversimplified because this 'one-sided piece' of 'reporting' is just an opinion piece. He doesn't need to be balanced, like he would if he was reporting a factual analysis of the situation.

 

Now if you would like to know about something that I didn't comment on, for example, WHY i reached that conclusion then I would advise you to follow best practices and ask a question like "Why do you think that?". In my experience it's far more successful in eliciting the type of response you seem to feel entitled to than performing semantic shenanigans on the sense of the word "reporting".

 

I don't think I'm entitled to anything. I think leveling the 'Daily Mail' accusation without any build up is quite ironic. You're doing exactly what the Daily Mail do, unlike Monbiot in the article.