The sacking of the Head of the Competitions & Market Authority on the grounds that this quango was stifling "growth" was perhaps one of many of the most pernicious things this Government has done to date.
I am in favour of ridding ourselves of regulation designed primarily to drive small competitors out of business and to stifle free enterprise. However, this is not what the Competition & Markets Authority was doing in this case - it seems that they were doing their job and not allowing large foreign corporations from hoovering up small, bankrupted competitors, thus cornering the market and being a position to name their terms with their hapless customers and the public in general. It is understandable the likes of Google and Microsoft, Amazon and X wanted this body nobbled.
Let us first consider these weasel euphemisms that actually do the opposite of what they are selling to the public. Orwell referred to "Truth" and "Love", both of which are concepts that are practically lost today. "Terrorism" has come to apply against any dissident unhappy about gross atrocities, such as harassment and even mass murder of civilians, carried out by the authorities against the general public and warrant even more brazen attacks on personal liberties carried out in order to keep a corrupt leader from justice. I have seen such a concept defended here on this very forum and I am appalled.
In the case of the sacking of the regulator, may I first point to the distinction between "sacking" and "firing", an Americanism lazily used by reporters here thinking it is a cooler way of saying the same thing, but actually means something quite different. When someone is sacked, they are allowed to take the tools of their trade with them and try again with another employer. A firing implies that these tools are ritually destroyed and that this person may never work again in the same profession.
In this case, the intention of the Starmer Government is not only to get rid of an employee with whom it has fallen out, but to destroy any prospects for this person ever to work again in the same profession, or taking the same ethical stand.
The intention of this corrosive Government, which I repeat over and over only has a 20% mandate due largely to the ineptitude of all the alternatives to unite the nation, is to transfer power and national assets from the public to select business interests - those attending the conference in Davos, and those swinging behind the new U.S. President, now he has absolute power over Congress,
They call this "growth". What they actually mean is growth of the wads held by the likes of Google, Amazon and X, so they can play spaceman at our expense. To do this, they must neutralise any opposition to fraud, corruption, malpractice and sharp dealing and install those who will turn a blind eye to robbery, in the same spirit that some police authorities have not prosecuted a burglar in years, and that nobody has actually been done for fraud, even in cases of miscarriage of justice at the level that haswrecked the economy and trashed the reputations of national institutions since 2008, and 1998 in the case of a gross miscarriage of justice.
Whenever I hear the word "growth" used by a politician now, I presume that he or she is promoting crime whilst "making hard decisions" about public interest and even public safety. They are condoning crime not defending us from it, and I condemn anyone using "growth" in this manner.
It is not just Liz Truss that started this, Mandelson of course is notorious, and of course the Starmer Government is hell-set to continue what Truss started. Even Ed Davey is talking about handing control of our nation's destiny back to unaccountable business interests abroad, again for the cause of "growth".
What can we do about this without finding ourselves "fired"?