“When I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty (in Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass), “it means just what I choose it to mean.” And in this topsy-turvy world beloved of make-belief politics, no word is more prone to egoistic manipulation than ‘democracy’.
Since democracy is ultimately about the power of citizens to shape their own governance so that they would not be oppressed collectively or individually, it follows that any attempt by authoritarian wolves to cloak themselves with the appearance of ‘democracy’ is not going to stand up to serious scrutiny.
At the most basic level, democracy needs robust and transparent rules to operate. Otherwise, anyone can lie, intimidate, bribe, break the law to gain an illegitimate advantage in the electoral process, and claim to have a democratic mandate to rule.
Unfortunately, the Humpty-Dumpties around us seem to have been given a free pass these days to use the word ‘democracy’ in any way they like, regardless of how nonsensical they are being.
Listen to them defending as ‘democratic’ a referendum outcome that is produced by mass deception and systemic law-breaking. When their lies are exposed, the best they can say in response is “Everybody lies”. When their illegal activities are discovered, they insist that everyone else is biased against them.
Meanwhile, a new Prime Minister will be installed in the UK by 124,000 members of the Conservative Party, while the rest of the country’s 46.8 million registered voters will have no say whatsoever. If the House of Commons chooses to eject this leader with a vote of no confidence and call for a general election, be ready for cries of outrage against this affront on ‘democracy’ – as though 0.26% of voters should override MPs representing the whole electorate.
Under the ‘democratic’ system in the US, you can become President of the country by getting fewer votes from the people than your rival. Once in power, you can put your faith in the words of the Russian leader even though everyone else in high office back home has warned against Russian interference in American elections. If anyone is likely to expose any financial crime or deliberate obstruction of justice you may have committed, you dismiss them or appoint someone in a more senior position to sideline their findings.
Furthermore, in both the UK and the US, those who assume poor and minority ethnic people are more likely to vote against them, have turned to devising Photo ID requirements that will serve little purpose other than preventing these categories of citizens from voting. All in the name of defending ‘democracy’ [Note: the evidence has shown that voter fraud is actually few and far between].
If we value democracy, we can’t allow the word to be used by demagogues to mean whatever they choose it to mean. Humpty-Dumpties are full of themselves, but they too can fall – quite spectacularly.
Saturday, 15 June 2019
Saturday, 1 June 2019
Ask Grayling: the politics of chaos
Politics is meant to be the art of bringing people together, promoting harmony, and enabling people to work together to achieve what none individually could attain. But in the name of ‘politics’, some people practise the devious craft of sowing seeds of divisiveness, breaking up joint endeavours, and weakening the many so as to gratify the powerful few. This ‘politics of chaos’ presents itself as a governing option for the people, but in truth, it is little more than a series of tactical moves to disrupt society so an irresponsible elite can do as they please.
How does it work? Perhaps we can learn more about it by raising a few questions in connection with Chris Grayling, a long serving member of the Conservative Government in the UK, who seems to have an abiding interest in advancing chaos as an ideological goal.
The National Audit Office has found that changes pushed forward by Chris Grayling when he was Justice Secretary in 2014, which led to part-privatisation of the probation service in England and Wales, involved serious failings and had cost taxpayers almost £500 million. The Chief Probation Inspector, Dame Glenys Stacey, said what Grayling insisted on bringing about despite having been warned against it, was "irredeemably flawed" and people would be safer under a system delivered by the public sector.
Having created chaos in the supervision of offenders, Grayling moved on to become Transport Secretary, and continued with the mantra that private companies were better at meeting public needs, irrespective of the evidence. As the previous privatisation of the railway service was fuelling a growing chaos, and the railway regulator issued a report to highlight the need for the government to deal with the crisis, Grayling declared that it was not his responsibility – as the Secretary of State for Transport – to sort out the underlying system problem, which only the government could tackle.
The one area Grayling seemed to accept was his responsibility was to help the UK prepare for a no deal Brexit, since that could lead to critical imports not reaching the country, and vital medicine and key manufacturing components being held up indefinitely. So Grayling took immediate action by awarding a £13.8m contract to a ‘start-up’ company to provide extra ferries to help with shipping goods into the UK, even though that company had no experience in running ferry service – in fact, it had no ships at all. For the record, Grayling gave contracts to other companies too, and his handling of those arrangements led to costly compensation having to be paid out – estimated by the National Audit Office to be over £50 million.
Was Grayling just overwhelmed by the fear of Brexit chaos that he ended up rashly taking some rather ill-considered decisions? Actually, on all matters relating to Brexit chaos, he was all for turning the country upside down for the sake of combating the cause of all ills – immigration. Back when he was Leader of the Commons, he warned that mass immigration “will change the face of our country forever”. He actively campaigned for Brexit to keep ‘foreigners’ out and claimed that otherwise “additional demand for housing will gobble up vast tracts of green belt land and mean we will have to dramatically expand our transport system to avoid gridlock.” And he did go on to demonstrate, irrespective of levels of immigration, he could ensure chaos across our transport system all by himself.
Wasting public money, undermining public services, stirring up animosity towards immigrants – have we here a litany of utter incompetence, or an ideological obsession with the politics of chaos, or both? Ask Grayling.
--
For a report on the failings of Grayling’s part-privatisation of the probation service, see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48288433
Other reports on his role as Transport Secretary and advocate for Brexit can be found in most newspapers published in the UK.
How does it work? Perhaps we can learn more about it by raising a few questions in connection with Chris Grayling, a long serving member of the Conservative Government in the UK, who seems to have an abiding interest in advancing chaos as an ideological goal.
The National Audit Office has found that changes pushed forward by Chris Grayling when he was Justice Secretary in 2014, which led to part-privatisation of the probation service in England and Wales, involved serious failings and had cost taxpayers almost £500 million. The Chief Probation Inspector, Dame Glenys Stacey, said what Grayling insisted on bringing about despite having been warned against it, was "irredeemably flawed" and people would be safer under a system delivered by the public sector.
Having created chaos in the supervision of offenders, Grayling moved on to become Transport Secretary, and continued with the mantra that private companies were better at meeting public needs, irrespective of the evidence. As the previous privatisation of the railway service was fuelling a growing chaos, and the railway regulator issued a report to highlight the need for the government to deal with the crisis, Grayling declared that it was not his responsibility – as the Secretary of State for Transport – to sort out the underlying system problem, which only the government could tackle.
The one area Grayling seemed to accept was his responsibility was to help the UK prepare for a no deal Brexit, since that could lead to critical imports not reaching the country, and vital medicine and key manufacturing components being held up indefinitely. So Grayling took immediate action by awarding a £13.8m contract to a ‘start-up’ company to provide extra ferries to help with shipping goods into the UK, even though that company had no experience in running ferry service – in fact, it had no ships at all. For the record, Grayling gave contracts to other companies too, and his handling of those arrangements led to costly compensation having to be paid out – estimated by the National Audit Office to be over £50 million.
Was Grayling just overwhelmed by the fear of Brexit chaos that he ended up rashly taking some rather ill-considered decisions? Actually, on all matters relating to Brexit chaos, he was all for turning the country upside down for the sake of combating the cause of all ills – immigration. Back when he was Leader of the Commons, he warned that mass immigration “will change the face of our country forever”. He actively campaigned for Brexit to keep ‘foreigners’ out and claimed that otherwise “additional demand for housing will gobble up vast tracts of green belt land and mean we will have to dramatically expand our transport system to avoid gridlock.” And he did go on to demonstrate, irrespective of levels of immigration, he could ensure chaos across our transport system all by himself.
Wasting public money, undermining public services, stirring up animosity towards immigrants – have we here a litany of utter incompetence, or an ideological obsession with the politics of chaos, or both? Ask Grayling.
--
For a report on the failings of Grayling’s part-privatisation of the probation service, see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48288433
Other reports on his role as Transport Secretary and advocate for Brexit can be found in most newspapers published in the UK.
Wednesday, 15 May 2019
Cooperation First: a new educational focus
Cooperation First is an approach to human interaction that should be the focus of every form of education, at every level. It teaches us to recognise that reciprocity is key to mutual wellbeing; that helping each other succeed is better for all than if some were allowed to push ahead by taking unfair advantage of others; and genuine cooperation can only take place on equal terms without deception or prejudice distorting relationships.
It does not matter what party labels people prefer, what religious or secular beliefs we grew up with, or what our cultural heritage happens to be, we all have the potential to appreciate and engage in positive cooperation with others. What is needed is sustained support in developing our understanding, so that we are ready to reach out to others, and at the same time be on guard against those who refuse to reciprocate our readiness to work with them. We also need to grasp the necessity of two-way scrutiny of reasons and evidence, and be able to apply cooperative problem-solving and avoid dogmatic assertions, when we seek to establish what can be accepted as shared beliefs.
Furthermore, Cooperation First can be taken forward in learning programmes that enhance:
• Skills for workplace cooperation: the most important are transferable skills that can be applied at successive levels in the work context – these are skills for cooperation, from customer service, production liaison, setting up quality circles, to rota management and strategic planning, and the setting up of worker cooperatives.
• Skills for political cooperation: the most important are critical skills in understanding policy proposals, grasping intentions, unpacking rhetoric, checking the reliability of sources, debunking false or misleading claims, persuading others to think and act, and learning to anticipate deflections, and address others’ underlying concerns.
• Skills for community cooperation: the most important are social skills in ice-breaking, building trust, devising joint activities, defusing misunderstanding, and facilitating consensus exploration. Particularly important is the ability to improve empathy amongst diverse groups, and generate a sense of common purpose.
In parallel, we all need to learn more about how to deal with people who appear not to want to work with us. We should be able to understand what is behind their stance. For example, some may have been deceived or indoctrinated into going along with prejudiced and irrational actions. Some would have missed out on opportunities to think through issues in an open and rational manner, engage with people beyond a closed circle, or be treated with trust and respect. There are those who been conned into believing they should target their anger and frustration at people who are in fact innocent scapegoats. In all such cases, we should engage with them sympathetically to help them escape from their distorted perceptions of the world. Through appropriate learning, they may come to see through the lies, and channel their feelings where they will make a positive difference for them and others.
Unfortunately, there will also be those who want to gratify their own ambitions regardless of the consequences for others, and some will even seek the subjection of others to give themselves a twisted sense of superiority. With them, there can be no compromise. Their duplicitous agendas must be exposed, their overbearing power curtailed, and their insidious policies reversed. This, too, is something that must be widely taught if true cooperation is to be secured.
--
Check out the one-volume learning resource for democratic mutual support and cooperative problem-solving: What Should Citizens Believe? – exploring the issues of truth, reason & society.
Available in e-book format: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CSYRF8H
And in paperback: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1548183105
It does not matter what party labels people prefer, what religious or secular beliefs we grew up with, or what our cultural heritage happens to be, we all have the potential to appreciate and engage in positive cooperation with others. What is needed is sustained support in developing our understanding, so that we are ready to reach out to others, and at the same time be on guard against those who refuse to reciprocate our readiness to work with them. We also need to grasp the necessity of two-way scrutiny of reasons and evidence, and be able to apply cooperative problem-solving and avoid dogmatic assertions, when we seek to establish what can be accepted as shared beliefs.
Furthermore, Cooperation First can be taken forward in learning programmes that enhance:
• Skills for workplace cooperation: the most important are transferable skills that can be applied at successive levels in the work context – these are skills for cooperation, from customer service, production liaison, setting up quality circles, to rota management and strategic planning, and the setting up of worker cooperatives.
• Skills for political cooperation: the most important are critical skills in understanding policy proposals, grasping intentions, unpacking rhetoric, checking the reliability of sources, debunking false or misleading claims, persuading others to think and act, and learning to anticipate deflections, and address others’ underlying concerns.
• Skills for community cooperation: the most important are social skills in ice-breaking, building trust, devising joint activities, defusing misunderstanding, and facilitating consensus exploration. Particularly important is the ability to improve empathy amongst diverse groups, and generate a sense of common purpose.
In parallel, we all need to learn more about how to deal with people who appear not to want to work with us. We should be able to understand what is behind their stance. For example, some may have been deceived or indoctrinated into going along with prejudiced and irrational actions. Some would have missed out on opportunities to think through issues in an open and rational manner, engage with people beyond a closed circle, or be treated with trust and respect. There are those who been conned into believing they should target their anger and frustration at people who are in fact innocent scapegoats. In all such cases, we should engage with them sympathetically to help them escape from their distorted perceptions of the world. Through appropriate learning, they may come to see through the lies, and channel their feelings where they will make a positive difference for them and others.
Unfortunately, there will also be those who want to gratify their own ambitions regardless of the consequences for others, and some will even seek the subjection of others to give themselves a twisted sense of superiority. With them, there can be no compromise. Their duplicitous agendas must be exposed, their overbearing power curtailed, and their insidious policies reversed. This, too, is something that must be widely taught if true cooperation is to be secured.
--
Check out the one-volume learning resource for democratic mutual support and cooperative problem-solving: What Should Citizens Believe? – exploring the issues of truth, reason & society.
Available in e-book format: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CSYRF8H
And in paperback: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1548183105
Wednesday, 1 May 2019
The Politics of Reckless Endangerment
Egoistic authoritarians have always sought more power so they could do as they please regardless of the dire consequences for others. One of the main obstacles facing them has always been people’s readiness to resist their rule once the threats they pose come into view. But recently they have hit upon a new way to overcome this obstacle – it is the politics of promoting reckless endangerment.
How does it work?
Quite simply you identify the foundation of threat-identification – namely, objective analysis – and erode it until it becomes so unstable that people can be easily misled as to what poses a real danger to them.
With the help of irresponsible media under the control of corporate allies and the support of troll farms spreading misinformation, a culture of reckless endangerment can be widely and rapidly advanced. This is done through, for example, misleading people into rejecting vital vaccinations even though that will result in dangerous diseases spreading; diverting them to blaming immigrants for lowering their standards of living so they won’t notice that it is greedy executives who deny them even subsistence pay; championing the unaccountable use of excessive force at home and abroad without mentioning how counter-productive and harmful it is; or conning them into thinking pollution and climate change chaos are unreal even as the negative impact undermines their health and habitat.
When thoughtful observers and experienced experts point out that such approaches are both unfounded and dangerous, the response is invariably the equivalent of a dismissive smirk. There won’t be any rational, evidential, sincere engagement on what claims are warranted and what should be rejected. All that will be forthcoming are lies, abuses, groundless rumours, and endless aspersion against genuinely qualified people who seek to expose their untenable claims.
The net effect is that people who are most susceptible to emotional manipulation and rhetorical misdirection increasingly ignore reasoned judgements, and instead fall for systemic deception that endangers the lives of countless people.
For the egoistic authoritarians, this is the go-to recipe for stirring up mistrust, uncertainty, and chaos. When enough people can be steered towards, not only reckless behaviour that diminishes their own security and wellbeing, but fervent beliefs that glorify such behaviour as expressing their inviolable freedom, the demagogues who present themselves as the protectors of this freedom are hailed as their political saviours.
As the vicious circle continues to spiral downward, disorder spreads; public health is jeopardised; peace is displaced by knee-jerk aggression; vital public services are savagely cut; essential preventative measures are jettisoned; and international institutions for cooperation and conflict-resolution are dismantled. And while vulnerabilities multiply, those who have manipulated their way to amass ever greater power are able to dictate terms to more and more people.
It is time we remember that to value freedom is not to give a licence to people to cheat and distort so that they can gain power while others’ lives are severely damaged. We can live a worthwhile life freely, only if we have rules and objective adjudication that bind us all to behave responsibly.
The promotion of reckless endangerment is not an absolute right, it is an unforgivable wrong.
How does it work?
Quite simply you identify the foundation of threat-identification – namely, objective analysis – and erode it until it becomes so unstable that people can be easily misled as to what poses a real danger to them.
With the help of irresponsible media under the control of corporate allies and the support of troll farms spreading misinformation, a culture of reckless endangerment can be widely and rapidly advanced. This is done through, for example, misleading people into rejecting vital vaccinations even though that will result in dangerous diseases spreading; diverting them to blaming immigrants for lowering their standards of living so they won’t notice that it is greedy executives who deny them even subsistence pay; championing the unaccountable use of excessive force at home and abroad without mentioning how counter-productive and harmful it is; or conning them into thinking pollution and climate change chaos are unreal even as the negative impact undermines their health and habitat.
When thoughtful observers and experienced experts point out that such approaches are both unfounded and dangerous, the response is invariably the equivalent of a dismissive smirk. There won’t be any rational, evidential, sincere engagement on what claims are warranted and what should be rejected. All that will be forthcoming are lies, abuses, groundless rumours, and endless aspersion against genuinely qualified people who seek to expose their untenable claims.
The net effect is that people who are most susceptible to emotional manipulation and rhetorical misdirection increasingly ignore reasoned judgements, and instead fall for systemic deception that endangers the lives of countless people.
For the egoistic authoritarians, this is the go-to recipe for stirring up mistrust, uncertainty, and chaos. When enough people can be steered towards, not only reckless behaviour that diminishes their own security and wellbeing, but fervent beliefs that glorify such behaviour as expressing their inviolable freedom, the demagogues who present themselves as the protectors of this freedom are hailed as their political saviours.
As the vicious circle continues to spiral downward, disorder spreads; public health is jeopardised; peace is displaced by knee-jerk aggression; vital public services are savagely cut; essential preventative measures are jettisoned; and international institutions for cooperation and conflict-resolution are dismantled. And while vulnerabilities multiply, those who have manipulated their way to amass ever greater power are able to dictate terms to more and more people.
It is time we remember that to value freedom is not to give a licence to people to cheat and distort so that they can gain power while others’ lives are severely damaged. We can live a worthwhile life freely, only if we have rules and objective adjudication that bind us all to behave responsibly.
The promotion of reckless endangerment is not an absolute right, it is an unforgivable wrong.
Monday, 15 April 2019
Policies for Renewing State-Citizen Cooperation
Government institutions and citizens can only cooperate in an informed manner if policies in support of effective democratic engagement are taken on board. Set out below are five key policies to be considered:
[1] Focusing on making engagement a genuine lever for change
Engagement must be connected to options that would make a real difference to people’s lives. It should be backed by organisational arrangements so that at the outset there is a transparent and shared understanding of what changes can be secured. To involve people in detailed discussions only to reveal some way into the process that various doors are actually closed will only aggravate disillusionment. Those with the formal decision-making power must be willing to act on the outcomes of informed deliberations. In practice, such a commitment would require a feasibility analysis and a corresponding implementation plan before one launches into an engagement initiative.
[2] Identifying and publicising the value of democratic cooperation
More should be done to make the case for cooperative engagement. Local government accounting, for example, should not only list ‘the cost of democracy’ relating to any expenditure associated with elections and subsequent activities of councillors, but cover the gains to accountability and effectiveness generated by informed participation. Techniques for quantifying such gains should be widely adopted. Assessments from around the world have shown that where people are given genuine opportunities to reflect and contribute their views on the development of public actions, it tends to lead to more satisfactory and cost-efficient outcomes.
[3] Selecting appropriate and feasible involvement approaches under different circumstances
A wide range of approaches have been developed and refined for different circumstances, and they only work effectively if they are chosen sensibly and applied with the necessary know-how. Issues such as representativeness, locations, duration, and expenses need to be addressed accordingly. The approach to be adopted should comply with ground rules on, for example, mutual respect, civil discourse, and the adjudication and exclusion of lies and misinformation; handling emotional tensions and resolving them with due empathy; fair facilitating of discussions in reviewing pros and cons, questioning experts, formulating suggestions, and weighing options; and overseeing the resolution process.
[4] Cultivating inclusive community relations as a long-term strategy
Between specific engagement exercises there should be communications to cover not just how the outcomes of those exercises are being followed up on, but also what other policy explorations or everyday issues people may want to discuss. In addition to government bodies having regular and constructive communications with the public, the communities being engaged must themselves be not so divided that it would render shared deliberations impossible. This requires the appropriate use of community development to ensure people from all socio-economic and diverse cultural backgrounds are kept in touch and given realistic opportunities to share their views.
[5] Investing in the development of civic leadership at all levels of society
People aspiring to take on civic leadership positions in society should be assessed on their aptitudes for deliberative engagement with their fellow citizens, and there should be high quality training to enable them to develop the necessary skills and dispositions. Such training should raise understanding of the value and techniques of citizen engagement. Apart from investing in improving formal training provisions and selection arrangements, community-based learning networks should be supported to improve awareness of the opportunities and implications of becoming civic leaders, so that people irrespective of their age, gender, race and class, can be encouraged to participate in informed deliberations and decision-making in relation to public issues.
--
For more on the renewal of state-citizen cooperation, take a look at Whose Government is it? Available from Bristol University Press: https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/whose-government-is-it
[1] Focusing on making engagement a genuine lever for change
Engagement must be connected to options that would make a real difference to people’s lives. It should be backed by organisational arrangements so that at the outset there is a transparent and shared understanding of what changes can be secured. To involve people in detailed discussions only to reveal some way into the process that various doors are actually closed will only aggravate disillusionment. Those with the formal decision-making power must be willing to act on the outcomes of informed deliberations. In practice, such a commitment would require a feasibility analysis and a corresponding implementation plan before one launches into an engagement initiative.
[2] Identifying and publicising the value of democratic cooperation
More should be done to make the case for cooperative engagement. Local government accounting, for example, should not only list ‘the cost of democracy’ relating to any expenditure associated with elections and subsequent activities of councillors, but cover the gains to accountability and effectiveness generated by informed participation. Techniques for quantifying such gains should be widely adopted. Assessments from around the world have shown that where people are given genuine opportunities to reflect and contribute their views on the development of public actions, it tends to lead to more satisfactory and cost-efficient outcomes.
[3] Selecting appropriate and feasible involvement approaches under different circumstances
A wide range of approaches have been developed and refined for different circumstances, and they only work effectively if they are chosen sensibly and applied with the necessary know-how. Issues such as representativeness, locations, duration, and expenses need to be addressed accordingly. The approach to be adopted should comply with ground rules on, for example, mutual respect, civil discourse, and the adjudication and exclusion of lies and misinformation; handling emotional tensions and resolving them with due empathy; fair facilitating of discussions in reviewing pros and cons, questioning experts, formulating suggestions, and weighing options; and overseeing the resolution process.
[4] Cultivating inclusive community relations as a long-term strategy
Between specific engagement exercises there should be communications to cover not just how the outcomes of those exercises are being followed up on, but also what other policy explorations or everyday issues people may want to discuss. In addition to government bodies having regular and constructive communications with the public, the communities being engaged must themselves be not so divided that it would render shared deliberations impossible. This requires the appropriate use of community development to ensure people from all socio-economic and diverse cultural backgrounds are kept in touch and given realistic opportunities to share their views.
[5] Investing in the development of civic leadership at all levels of society
People aspiring to take on civic leadership positions in society should be assessed on their aptitudes for deliberative engagement with their fellow citizens, and there should be high quality training to enable them to develop the necessary skills and dispositions. Such training should raise understanding of the value and techniques of citizen engagement. Apart from investing in improving formal training provisions and selection arrangements, community-based learning networks should be supported to improve awareness of the opportunities and implications of becoming civic leaders, so that people irrespective of their age, gender, race and class, can be encouraged to participate in informed deliberations and decision-making in relation to public issues.
--
For more on the renewal of state-citizen cooperation, take a look at Whose Government is it? Available from Bristol University Press: https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/whose-government-is-it
Monday, 1 April 2019
Fool’s Paradise: the ultimate political resort
Since 2016, the numbers flocking to ‘Fool’s Paradise’ resorts on both sides of the Atlantic have dramatically increased. Even now, many are still attracted to the promises of taking back control and being made great again. In case anyone is wondering what is so tempting with these political resorts, take a look at what are on offer:
[1] Wake up to the daily mantra: “what is said here is always true; what is said elsewhere is fake news”. Never worry about facts or evidence. To check out what you should believe, simply follow the tweets from our Con-Troll Centre.
[2] Fuel your anger and direct your complaints at one or more of the culprits on the official scapegoat list. Anything you’re unhappy about, blame immigrants, trade unions, benefit claimants, minorities, feminists, the European Union, the United Nations, or anyone deemed unacceptably ‘different’ [note: the list is expanding, check at reception].
[3] Remember everything is guaranteed for life (and hence non-refundable). Once you’ve chosen ‘Fool’s Paradise’, that’s it. It’ll be assumed you’ll never change your mind. If you tell us you’ve changed your mind, you’ll be ignored just the same.
[4] Become independent in every way. No help of any kind will be given to you. Whenever you’re cold and tired, you are welcome to sleep anywhere with nothing but the flag wrapped gloriously around you [note: flags, caps, and other souvenir items will incur extra charges].
[5] Enjoy extra servings of hypocrisy which are free and available at all times, as you sing the praise of those in charge of ‘Fool’s Paradise’ even though they behave in atrocious ways that you would condemn in connection with anyone else.
[6] Use your unlimited freedom to mock, intimidate, and cheat anyone you like. And feel outraged when others use their freedom to do the same to you. Basically, anything goes in paradise – so long as you can afford the service of the most expensive lawyers.
[7] Attend costly classes on how the masters of ‘Fool’s Paradise’ manage to make a lot of money for themselves by having no reservation over how they violate probity, hurt the poor, pollute the environment, and increase economic insecurity for everyone else.
[8] Take your mind off things by signing up to one of the popular diversion activities [current favourites include: hate speech on campus, climate change denial, anti-vaccination]; ever reliable to help you forget what a mess you’ve made for yourself and others.
[9] Organise violent field trips to bring fear and harm to the many designated enemies [note: an updated list is tweeted daily]. If you are caught injuring or killing people, however, you will be classified as a ‘deranged individual’ who has acted on your own.
Fool’s Paradise – the ultimate political resort for people who’d believe anything, want everything, and understand nothing.
[1] Wake up to the daily mantra: “what is said here is always true; what is said elsewhere is fake news”. Never worry about facts or evidence. To check out what you should believe, simply follow the tweets from our Con-Troll Centre.
[2] Fuel your anger and direct your complaints at one or more of the culprits on the official scapegoat list. Anything you’re unhappy about, blame immigrants, trade unions, benefit claimants, minorities, feminists, the European Union, the United Nations, or anyone deemed unacceptably ‘different’ [note: the list is expanding, check at reception].
[3] Remember everything is guaranteed for life (and hence non-refundable). Once you’ve chosen ‘Fool’s Paradise’, that’s it. It’ll be assumed you’ll never change your mind. If you tell us you’ve changed your mind, you’ll be ignored just the same.
[4] Become independent in every way. No help of any kind will be given to you. Whenever you’re cold and tired, you are welcome to sleep anywhere with nothing but the flag wrapped gloriously around you [note: flags, caps, and other souvenir items will incur extra charges].
[5] Enjoy extra servings of hypocrisy which are free and available at all times, as you sing the praise of those in charge of ‘Fool’s Paradise’ even though they behave in atrocious ways that you would condemn in connection with anyone else.
[6] Use your unlimited freedom to mock, intimidate, and cheat anyone you like. And feel outraged when others use their freedom to do the same to you. Basically, anything goes in paradise – so long as you can afford the service of the most expensive lawyers.
[7] Attend costly classes on how the masters of ‘Fool’s Paradise’ manage to make a lot of money for themselves by having no reservation over how they violate probity, hurt the poor, pollute the environment, and increase economic insecurity for everyone else.
[8] Take your mind off things by signing up to one of the popular diversion activities [current favourites include: hate speech on campus, climate change denial, anti-vaccination]; ever reliable to help you forget what a mess you’ve made for yourself and others.
[9] Organise violent field trips to bring fear and harm to the many designated enemies [note: an updated list is tweeted daily]. If you are caught injuring or killing people, however, you will be classified as a ‘deranged individual’ who has acted on your own.
Fool’s Paradise – the ultimate political resort for people who’d believe anything, want everything, and understand nothing.
Thursday, 14 March 2019
Carry On Brexit
Year: 2015. Scene: Conservative Party conference.
Cameron: Let me be quite clear, it would be insane and disastrous for our country if we were to leave the European Union. But that UKIP lot, with their ‘leave-the-EU’ claptrap, are quite happy to embrace insanity and disasters. So, to stop them winning seats from Tory MPs, I will stymie them by holding an EU referendum. Let me assure you, there’s no need to prepare for the most unlikely and catastrophic event of us leaving, because I will personally campaign for us to stay in the EU, and I will win it for us.
[He lost, stepped down, and passed the mess to whoever was desperate enough to be Prime Minister to sort out – that would be Theresa May]
Year: 2016. Scene: Campaign planners for Brexit in secret meetings.
Planner A: Allocate all this extra money as set out via all social media channels to get more people to back Brexit.
Planner B: But the messages going out are all total lies.
Planner A: So what?
Planner B: The contact details have been obtained through breaches of privacy laws.
Planner A: So what?
Planner B: And this extra spending would break the law on campaigning.
Planner A: Shut up and get on with it.
Year: 2017. Scene: House of Commons.
May: Does the Leader of the Opposition have any objection to me triggering Article 50 which will give us two long years to prepare for the UK to leave the EU.
Corbyn: I totally support you, Prime Minister.
May: Even though you don’t have any more of a clue what kind of Brexit would be feasible and not ruin our country?
Corbyn: We must respect the result of the referendum, regardless of what might have led to it. Trigger Article 50 even if that gives just two years to find a way forward for Brexit.
Year: 2018. Scene: 10 Downing Street.
May: Davis, you’re my Secretary of State for Brexit, how are the negotiations going with the EU?
Davis: How can I agree anything with them when I can’t even agree the most basic things with you! I resign.
May: Will someone give me some positive news?
A senior advisor: we have been informed by the police and the security service that the Brexit campaign definitely broke the law, and Russian interference is also suspected in misleading British people to back Leave.
May: I don’t know what you’re saying. We must respect Brexit.
Advisor: But they broke the law.
May: Brexit means Brexit, repeat after me, Brexit means Brexit.
[Later in 2018, again in 10 Downing Street]
May: Raab, you’re my new Secretary of State for Brexit, how are the negotiations going with the EU?
Raab: How can I agree anything with them when I can’t even agree the most basic things with you! I resign.
May: Barclay, for the third time I have to appoint a Secretary of State for Brexit. Things always work out the third time round.
Year: 2019. Scene: House of Commons.
May: Time is running out. Here’s the brilliant deal I’ve negotiated with the EU. Place your trust in me, vote for my deal.
Speaker of the House: The Prime Minister’s proposed deal is defeated 432 to 202.
May: I’ll be back … with an improved deal.
[She did not. She just basically put the same deal to the House of Commons again]
Speaker of the House: The Prime Minister’s deal is defeated 391 to 242.
May: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The House has spoken again, and make no mistake, I have heard what I wanted to hear – and that is this, the margins of defeat are reducing. I will concoct a few more delaying tactics, but you have not seen the end of my precious deal.
The Cabinet in unison: You can’t be serious, Prime Minister.
May: Things always work out the third time round. Carry on.
Cameron: Let me be quite clear, it would be insane and disastrous for our country if we were to leave the European Union. But that UKIP lot, with their ‘leave-the-EU’ claptrap, are quite happy to embrace insanity and disasters. So, to stop them winning seats from Tory MPs, I will stymie them by holding an EU referendum. Let me assure you, there’s no need to prepare for the most unlikely and catastrophic event of us leaving, because I will personally campaign for us to stay in the EU, and I will win it for us.
[He lost, stepped down, and passed the mess to whoever was desperate enough to be Prime Minister to sort out – that would be Theresa May]
Year: 2016. Scene: Campaign planners for Brexit in secret meetings.
Planner A: Allocate all this extra money as set out via all social media channels to get more people to back Brexit.
Planner B: But the messages going out are all total lies.
Planner A: So what?
Planner B: The contact details have been obtained through breaches of privacy laws.
Planner A: So what?
Planner B: And this extra spending would break the law on campaigning.
Planner A: Shut up and get on with it.
Year: 2017. Scene: House of Commons.
May: Does the Leader of the Opposition have any objection to me triggering Article 50 which will give us two long years to prepare for the UK to leave the EU.
Corbyn: I totally support you, Prime Minister.
May: Even though you don’t have any more of a clue what kind of Brexit would be feasible and not ruin our country?
Corbyn: We must respect the result of the referendum, regardless of what might have led to it. Trigger Article 50 even if that gives just two years to find a way forward for Brexit.
Year: 2018. Scene: 10 Downing Street.
May: Davis, you’re my Secretary of State for Brexit, how are the negotiations going with the EU?
Davis: How can I agree anything with them when I can’t even agree the most basic things with you! I resign.
May: Will someone give me some positive news?
A senior advisor: we have been informed by the police and the security service that the Brexit campaign definitely broke the law, and Russian interference is also suspected in misleading British people to back Leave.
May: I don’t know what you’re saying. We must respect Brexit.
Advisor: But they broke the law.
May: Brexit means Brexit, repeat after me, Brexit means Brexit.
[Later in 2018, again in 10 Downing Street]
May: Raab, you’re my new Secretary of State for Brexit, how are the negotiations going with the EU?
Raab: How can I agree anything with them when I can’t even agree the most basic things with you! I resign.
May: Barclay, for the third time I have to appoint a Secretary of State for Brexit. Things always work out the third time round.
Year: 2019. Scene: House of Commons.
May: Time is running out. Here’s the brilliant deal I’ve negotiated with the EU. Place your trust in me, vote for my deal.
Speaker of the House: The Prime Minister’s proposed deal is defeated 432 to 202.
May: I’ll be back … with an improved deal.
[She did not. She just basically put the same deal to the House of Commons again]
Speaker of the House: The Prime Minister’s deal is defeated 391 to 242.
May: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The House has spoken again, and make no mistake, I have heard what I wanted to hear – and that is this, the margins of defeat are reducing. I will concoct a few more delaying tactics, but you have not seen the end of my precious deal.
The Cabinet in unison: You can’t be serious, Prime Minister.
May: Things always work out the third time round. Carry on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)