The mask of Davos Man has slipped. The elites will do anything to discredit Brexit
The latest revelations in this spirit concern Klaus Schwab, founder of the Davos conference and the subject of innumerable online conspiracy theories. It appears from reports today and previously in the Swiss press that he did allegedly conspire to misrepresent the UK's ranking in international competitiveness leagues. The UK ought to have been fourth in the 2017/18 report, but Schwab apparently feared this would be interpreted as some kind of endorsement of the Brexit vote in the EU Referendum and is accused of having instructed his staff to make sure the UK did not rise – meaning the UK fell from 7th to 8th in the final report, with Schwab's World Economic Forum warning that the Brexit vote would inevitably undermine UK competitiveness.
This was, of course, on top of numerous warnings ahead of the Brexit vote about how dire its impacts would be – not only from the UK government but from other international politicians and agencies as well. We now know for certain that many of these predictions were false – e.g. the Brexit vote did not trigger an instant year-long 'RECESSION' in the UK as the Treasury ominously warned. But how many of them were lies, policymakers saying things they didn't even believe to be true themselves, in the hope of manipulating the public into acting in the manner they felt promoted a greater good?
A popular online meme mocks Michael Gove's much misquoted statement during the EU Referendum campaign that 'the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.' But it's more than simply that these 'experts' get it wrong by accident. They often say things they don't believe themselves to be true or that they know are incomplete, in the hope of manipulating the public.
In the US that practice is widely believed to have extended to the mainstream media, with many in the public regarding 'fake news' as an accepted norm. This belief has devalued truthfulness in politics to the point that those on the Trump side appear to consider blatantly lying themselves as just 'playing the game' and everyone appears to accept this as normal.
In the UK accusing a politician of 'lying' in Parliament is forbidden, leading to all kinds of famous circumlocution to avoid using that word. Some commentators argue that we should avoid calling politicians liars because it degrades political debate. But that attitude requires a norm of good faith – that politicians will almost always be trying to be as truthful as they can be and even when unable to tell the full truth will go out of their way to avoid actually lying. But the public belief in that good faith is almost gone.
Integrity takes a long time to build up but can be shattered quickly. And once it is shattered it is very hard to repair. It could take decades before the public believes they can take statistics, modelling results or the public statements of experts, let alone of politicians, at face value again. Being unable to tell the public difficult truths and have them believed may have dire consequences for decades to come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Hunter Biden suggests Joe Biden's disastrous debate was due to Ambien
WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - Former President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, said his father's disastrous debate performance against President Donald Trump that led to the Democrat stepping aside as presidential candidate was the result of him taking Ambien due to his travel. "And I'll tell you what, I know exactly what happened in that debate. He (Joe Biden) flew around the world, basically the mileage he could have flown around the world three times. He's 81 years old. He's tired as shit," the former president's son said in an interview released, opens new tab on Monday with YouTube creator Andrew Callaghan. "They give him Ambien to be able to sleep. He gets up on the stage and he looks like he's a deer in the headlights," Hunter Biden added. Ambien is a medication used for short-term treatment of sleeping problems. Joe Biden's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment late on Monday. The former president prepared at Camp David with his aides for several days for the debate. Prior to being at Camp David, the Democrat took two European trips and was on the U.S. West Coast for a fundraiser. The former president's debate performance against then-Republican presidential candidate Trump, in which the Democrat regularly struggled to finish his thoughts, triggered a backlash against Biden's candidacy for the 2024 elections. Less than a month after that June 27, 2024, debate, Biden stepped aside as presidential candidate after having trailed Trump in the polls. Former Vice President Kamala Harris then became the candidate for the Democrats and went on to lose to Trump in the November elections. In the days after the debate, the former president blamed his debate performance on jet lag after two overseas trips earlier that month. In the interview released on Monday, Hunter Biden also expressed frustration with Democratic voices, strategists and lawmakers who abandoned his father's candidacy following the debate.
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
Blairs' discount designer clothes deal caused No 10 concern, files show
Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife Cherie received tens of thousands of pounds in discounts on designer clothing while in Downing Street, documents July 2001 and December 2002, Mrs Blair bought clothes worth more than £75,000 – equivalent to £150,000 today – but paid just £31,000 for them, newly released papers from the National Archives Street officials were worried these benefits would have to be declared under a new ministerial code, which was then coming into effect, and advised the Blairs to repay thousands of is not clear from the papers if this happened. From fashion designer Nicole Farhi alone, Mrs Blair bought clothes worth nearly £21,000 for herself and the prime minister, paying just over £8, also had substantial discounts from Burberry, James Lakeland, Ungaro, Joseph, and Maria Grachvogel, amongst "wholesale" discounts had been negotiated by Carole Caplin, Mrs Blair's trainer and personal Tony, who was prime minister between 1997 and 2007, also benefited from a 25% discount from Paul Smith, famous for his freshly released documents reveal how the optics of the discounts and spending was a concern for Downing Street officials at the time."In terms of public perception," wrote No 10 private secretary Clare Sumner, "the amounts involved are quite large".Along with the cabinet secretary, she recommended that the Blairs should pay back part of the discount, though Cherie was entitled to divide her purchases into two, on the basis that half the clothes were required for her role as a "career woman".They would say the Blairs had "commercial terms" from the designers, which were usually a discount of about 10 or 15%.She suggested other options, including saying that Mrs Blair had the same treatment as other high profile individuals with a personal shopper, and that she needed the clothes for public engagements of her said Mrs Blair sometimes gave her outfits to charities or exhibitions after use: "So it is difficult to see how anyone could seriously allege she is acquiring a clear personal benefit out of your position as PM." According to the memo, the discounts had been in place for several years, and dated back to before Sir Tony was prime Tony himself scrawled "Speak to me" on the memo, dated 19 February 2003. Later that day, Mrs Blair spoke to Ms note to the cabinet secretary, dated 4 March 2003, says Mrs Blair agreed to speak to Paddy Campbell, Paul Smith and Nicole Farhi to "ask them to set out in writing their terms of trade, confirm that these terms are available to others (with personal shoppers or as individuals) and to provide an estimate of the numbers of people who bought their clothes in a similar way".She would also confirm that "confidentiality agreements" were in place with these intent was to "satisfy" Sir Andrew Turnbull, the cabinet secretary, that "no preferential treatment had been given".There is no mention of gifts of clothes discounts in the ministerial gift list in the file – which was published on 14 March behalf of the Blairs, the Tony Blair Institute said: " We have nothing to add to what has already been disclosed which shows that advice was sought and followed." As prime minister, Sir Tony received some extremely generous presents from famous people and world leaders.U2 lead singer Bono had given him a guitar – as had Bryan Berlusconi, the then Italian prime minister, offered multiple designer watches, including timepieces from Piaget, Corum, Jaeger-Coultre, and prime minister asked Ms Sumner to make the list "more boring" – so the published version did not include the type of watch, which can retail at many thousands of pounds wrote: "I have taken out details of individuals, removed the valuations for all items except those which have been purchased and minimised the descriptions of items."The concern over discounted clothes has similarities with criticism faced by Sir Keir Starmer and his wife. Last year he accepted more than £18,000 for spectacles and work clothing from the Labour peer Lord Alli, who also paid for some clothes for Sir Keir's wife Victoria worth just over £6,000.
Sky News
43 minutes ago
- Sky News
Pressure grows to leave 'mad' Aarhus Convention used to block UK building projects
Pressure is growing to renegotiate or leave an international convention blamed for slowing building projects and increasing costs after a judge warned campaigners they are in danger of "the misuse of judicial review". Under the Aarhus Convention, campaigners who challenge projects on environmental grounds but then lose in court against housing and big infrastructure have their costs above £10,000 capped and the rest met by the taxpayer. Government figures say this situation is "mad" but ministers have not acted, despite promising to do so for months. The Tories are today leading the call for change with a demand to reform or leave the convention. In March, Sky News revealed how a computer scientist from Norfolk had challenged a carbon capture and storage project attached to a gas-fired power station on multiple occasions. Andrew Boswell took his challenge all the way the appeal court, causing delays of months at a cost of over £100m to the developers. In May, the verdict handed down by the Court of Appeal was scathing about Dr Boswell's case. "Dr Boswell's approach is, we think, a classic example of the misuse of judicial review in order to continue a campaign against a development… once a party has lost the argument on the planning merits," wrote the judges. They added: "Such an approach is inimical to the scheme enacted by parliament for the taking of decisions in the public interest," adding his case "betrays a serious misunderstanding of the decision of the Supreme Court" and "the appeal must therefore be rejected". Another case - against a housing development in a series of fields in Cranbrook, Kent - was thrown out by judges in recent weeks. The case was brought by CPRE Kent, the countryside challenge, to preserve a set of fields between two housing developments alongside an area of outstanding natural beauty. John Wotton, from CPRE Kent, suggested it would have been hard to bring the challenge without the costs being capped. "We would've had to think very carefully about whether we could impose that financial risk on the charity," he told Sky News. After his case was dismissed, Berkeley Homes said the situation was "clearly absurd and highlights how incredibly slow and uncertain our regulatory system has become". They added: "We welcome the government's commitment to tackle the blockages which stop businesses from investing and frustrate the delivery of much needed homes, jobs and growth. "We need to make the current system work properly so that homes can actually get built instead of being tied-up in bureaucracy by any individual or organisation who wants to stop them against the will of the government." 'Reform could breach international law' Around 80 cases a year are brought under the Aarhus Convention, Sky News has learned. The way Britain interprets Aarhus is unique as a result of the UK's distinctive legal system and the loser pays principle. Barrister Nick Grant, a planning and environment expert who has represented government and campaigns, said the convention means more legally adventurous claims. "What you might end up doing is bringing a claim on more adventurous grounds, additional grounds, running points - feeling comfortable running points - that you might not have otherwise run. "So it's both people bringing claims, but also how they bring the claims, and what points they run. This cap facilitates it basically." However, Mr Grant said that it would be difficult to reform: "Fundamentally, the convention is doing what it was designed to do, which is to facilitate access to justice. "And it then becomes a question for the policymakers as to what effect is this having and do we want to maintain that? It will be difficult for us to reform it internally without being in breach of our international law obligations" In March, Sky News was told Number 10 is actively looking at the convention. Multiple figures in government have said the situation with Britain's participation in the Aarhus Convention is "mad" but Sky News understands nothing of significance is coming on this subject. The Tories, however, want action. Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary and former housing minister, said the Tories would reform or leave the convention. He told Sky News: "I think the country faces a choice. Do we want to get the economy firing on all cylinders or not? "We've got to reform the planning system and we've got to ensure that judicial review... is not used to gum up the system and this convention is clearly one of the issues that has to be addressed. "We either reform it, if that's possible. I'm very sceptical because accords like this are very challenging and it takes many many years to reform them. "If that isn't possible, then we absolutely should think about leaving because what we've got to do is put the interest of the British public first." Mr Jenrick also attacked the lawyers who work on Aarhus cases on behalf of clients. "A cottage industry has grown. In fact, it's bigger than a cottage industry," he said.
