Remember, Remember, Vote Them Out in December: here's a 10-point reminder

After a decade of enduring ever-worsening damages from Tory rule, what should we say to fellow citizens who are still wondering if they might give another chance to a Con-led (Farage-backed) Government to help the superrich become more powerful and heap misery on everyone else? Here are 10 things to remind them of:

[1] Remember they imposed austerity on the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, while giving tax cuts to the richest. For all their pretence that it would help to revive the economy, they only made things worse because of their wastefulness over ill-conceived projects, and the inevitable weakening of consumer demands through greater job insecurity.

[2] Remember they actually couldn’t care less about social or economic stability for our country, as revealed by their willingness to run a risky referendum on our EU membership when the process was infested with lies and corrupted by illegal campaigning, resulting in endless political in-fighting and business chaos that are deeply damaging for everyone.

[3] Remember they don’t even bother to make any claim about adhering to ‘sound financial management’ anymore. They are breaking their own borrowing targets; they have squandered billions over ‘no deal planning’ for the sake of a futile bluff (when business leaders have repeatedly said that the so-called ‘planning’ would do nothing to mitigate a ‘no deal’ Brexit disaster); and they won’t say how much their a-new-pledge-a-day is likely to cost.

[4] Remember how they keep making promises about ending the severe underfunding of public services, but never deliver any new money in practice. NHS is starved of the necessary investment, and forced to make ‘efficiency savings’ which are then handed over to the Treasury for tax cuts for the rich. Under the last Labour government, satisfaction with the NHS reached an all-time high; under the Tories, it has plummeted to an all-time low.

[5] Remember the disdain with which they hold people, especially those who find themselves in dire circumstances. Victims of the Grenfell fire were blamed for their lack of common sense, while there was no mention of drastic cuts to the fire service under Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London. Homelessness has continued to get worse. The sick and disabled were told they were fit for work and had their benefits cut off, leaving them to starve, and some to commit suicide.

[6] Remember how since they won power in 2010 they have cut funding to local authorities by 50%, directly causing the crippling deterioration of services in support of social care, child protection, libraries, education, street cleansing, and countless other functions on which all but the wealthy elite rely.

[7] Remember how the fall in crime under the last Labour government has under the Tories been replaced by cuts in police numbers and a relentless rise in crime. Violent crime is increasing at an alarming rate; prison numbers and conditions are worsening; and the move to privatise probation services has proven to be a costly disaster.

[8] Remember whatever lip service they might pay to tackling the climate crisis, the Tories always put the interests of their fossil fuel donors first. They have cut support for renewable energy, and pushed forward with fracking even though 99.99% of respondents to a government consultation opposed it.

[9] Remember they have been at the forefront of stirring up anti-immigrant sentiments, despising multiculturalism, and instigating the ill treatment and deportation of legitimate migrants from the Windrush generation to more recent EU citizens in Britain. Alongside the sharp rise in hate crime, desperately needed workers from abroad – nurses, doctors, carers, scientists, etc. – are officiously prevented from coming here.

[10] Last but not least, remember the financial deregulation idolised by the Conservatives and pushed through by Thatcher to allow banks and building societies to lend out previously ring-fenced savers’ money without any due constraint? The deregulated lending led to the 2008 financial crash, jeopardised savers’ money, and bailouts for careless lenders. But the Tories have remained unrepentant and refused to rectify the deregulatory flaws. Without effective regulation, another crisis will hit us all again.

Question Boris Johnson: an election special

[If we are to have an interview with Boris Johnson that will bring up the many examples pertaining to his suitability for public office, this is how it will go…]

Q: A lot of people are asking why anyone should vote for your party when that could lead to you having a majority in the Commons to push through policies that are highly damaging for this country?

BJ: Balderdash! Nothing I’ve done or will do can ever be described as ‘damaging for this country’. My entire career is devoted to serving the public, and that’s the God’s honest truth.

Q: The truth? Isn’t that something you actually find rather difficult to handle? As a journalist, you were fired by The Times for making things up; as the Brussels Correspondent of the Telegraph, you repeatedly fabricated stories about what the European Commission was doing; and you were sacked from your job as shadow arts minister by your leader on the grounds that you had lied about an extra-marital affair.

BJ: Total piffles! I tell the truth on what matters. Everybody knows that.

Q: You mean like the people of Liverpool who lost loved ones at the Hillsborough disaster, and then found out that you, as Editor of The Spectator, falsely accused the victims as drunks who brought it on themselves; or the campaigners against the third runway at Heathrow who were given a solemn pledge from you to stand with them, but only until it suited your personal ambition to drop your opposition to the runway; or your old boss at the Daily Telegraph, Max Hastings, who knew you well and remarked that “Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade.”

BJ: It’s obvious we’re not going to agree about everything. But as a political leader, I deliver. Look at my record as London Mayor, the achievements speak for themselves.

Q: Are you referring to achievements such as closing 10 fire stations and removing 27 fire engines after promising you would do no such thing; declaring that you would eradicate rough sleeping in London by 2012 when during your term of office it actually doubled; telling people there would continue to be manned ticket offices at every tube station before you went on to close all of London's ticket offices; ignoring advice when you insisted on acquiring three water cannon vehicles, which were immediately banned by the Home Office from being used in London and ended up being sold for scrap; or wasting £53million of public funds over the ill-conceived Thames garden bridge project?

BJ: For heaven’s sake, try looking at the big picture. What’s most important for our country is Brexit, and I’m the only one capable of delivering it, because I believe in it and I would rather die in a ditch than let it slip.

Q: What exactly is it that you believe in relation to the European Union? In 2012, you said on the BBC Andrew Marr Show, ″it’s very simple – what most people in this country want is the Single Market, the Common Market.” You pointed out that even if we left the EU, “We’d still have huge numbers of staff trying to monitor what was going on in the Community, only we wouldn’t be able to sit in the Council of Ministers, we wouldn’t have any vote at all. Now I don’t think that’s a prospect that’s likely to appeal.” And you explained further in an article for the Daily Telegraph, “most of our problems are not caused by ‘Brussels’, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.”

BJ: It’s a free country, one can change one’s mind.

Q: So what changed yours? Could it be that when David Cameron put his political career on the line by backing Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, you thought that was your chance to become the favourite to succeed him with the Conservative Party becoming increasingly anti-EU, so you switched to backing Leave?

BJ: Absolutely not. It’s purely a matter of principle. Brexit is the correct path to take.

Q: And that is why you’re so incensed with MPs blocking it?

BJ: Of course. We must leave the EU. The moment we have agreed a way for our departure, we must take it, instead of coming up with pathetic excuses to vote it down.

Q: Yet when Theresa May agreed a way for Brexit, you voted it down. You blocked Brexit, because it helped to undermine her, force her to step down, and give you the chance to become the leader of the Tory Party, and by a quirk of procedures, Prime Minister of this country.

BJ: What utter nonsense! Theresa May’s deal was bad for the country. My deal is good for the country.

Q: But you don’t want Parliament to scrutinise it, and you don’t want to give the British people a ‘Final Say’ referendum to consider if on these terms it’d be better to leave or remain after all.

BJ: We must honour the 2016 referendum result.

Q: But as you said, it’s a free country, people can change their minds. It’s over three years since the 2016 referendum, and with far more details coming out now, shouldn’t people have a chance to reconsider?

BJ: Let me tell you something. When it comes to the most vital issues, you must leave it to the person at the top to make the ultimate decision. Why waste any more time when it can all be left to me to look after the interests of our country? There’s no conceivable reason why anyone should doubt my sincerity, my judgement, and my integrity. Trust me on this. I don’t lie.

Q: That just about sums it up.

--
Note: the dramatised interview above is based on information supplied in the articles to be found in the links below:
--
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10052646/Quitting-the-EU-wont-solve-our-problems-says-Boris-Johnson.html
(Boris Johnson on why leaving the EU won’t solve the UK’s problems.)
--
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain
(Max Hastings, former editor of the Telegraph, on Boris Johnson; succinctly summing him up as someone who “cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification”)
--
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-lies-conservative-leader-candidate-list-times-banana-brexit-bus-a8929076.html
(On Boris Johnson’s record on telling lies)
--
https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/02/14/boris-johnson-remember-what-he-said/
(Boris Johnson on people wanting to stay in the Single Market)
--
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-are-we-so-surprised-that-boris-johnson-lied-when-he-s-been-sacked-for-lying-twice-before-a7105976.html
(More on Boris Johnson’s lies and false promises)
--
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/09/garden-bridge-cost-taxpayer-50m-failure-charity-undermines-public/
(Boris Johnson wasting £53million of public money on Thames garden bridge.)
--
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-faces-questions-over-fire-brigade-cuts-following-greenfell-fire-2017-6
(Boris Johnson presiding over the closure of fire stations and removal of fire engines)
--
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrow-expansion-boris-johnson-third-runway-bulldozers-climate-change-a8963241.html
(Boris Johnson’s U-turn on Heathrow’s third runway).

Proud to be Open-Minded

It is often said these days that progressives must engage with the ‘values’ of the neglected masses. And what values are we talking about here? Apparently, these are values founded on a deep-seated antipathy towards the outlook of the so-called liberal ‘elite’. Angry traditionalists, we are told, are fed up with out-of-touch modernists and their being open-minded about everything. But should we start queuing up to spout the ‘greatness’ of how it used to be?

Let’s look at a few stand-out issues. First and foremost, there is the narrow, monolithic ‘we’ who want to have their neighbourhood, religion, country, and customs, just the way they were back in the ‘golden age’ (before those foreigners arrived). That’s pitted against the cosmopolitan, multicultural, ‘anywherers’/’citizens of nowhere’ who allegedly have no sense of belonging or proper identity. In reality, people with diverse skin colours, accents, faiths, customs, backgrounds, have been cooperating and enriching each other’s lives for centuries. It is an established fact that in areas where there is more mixed interaction, people are more positive about diversity, whereas in places with low immigration or rigid social segregation, there is greater distrust and unease about ‘newcomers’. The way forward is to promote more social mixing and collaborative community ventures.

Secondly, open-mindedness about family structures and gender roles is another common target. Right-wing populists champion ‘values’ that are associated with the traditional male-dominated family model, and are often found to speak up against gender equality, same sex marriage, or tougher enforcement to tackle sexist abuse or domestic violence. Far from endorsing outmoded prejudices dressed up as ‘traditional values’, progressives should point positively to examples of thriving relationships and happy families that are not hampered by discriminatory attitudes.

Thirdly, the problem of insecurity can be dealt with through an open-minded pragmatic approach to see what works best, or it can be confronted with force regardless of circumstances. Those yearning for good old macho toughness will instinctively back the bombing and invasion of foreign countries, detention of suspects without trials, lengthy prison sentence irrespective of the offence, and capital punishment even when critical testimony has been retracted. By contrast, if one really wants greater security, one should be willing to explore what is actually going to be most effective under different conditions – choosing and combining, e.g., deploying diplomacy and/or armed intervention; opting for incarceration and/or rehabilitation; granting a second chance and/or imposing tough penalties.

Finally, and in general, those who crave for certainty without having to engage in thoughtful assessment are always more susceptible to demagogic rhetoric that feeds their prejudices, hands them false promises, and manipulates them to serve someone else’s ambitions. But to find answers that will truly attain for them a better quality of life, they should be assisted with improved understanding of how objective analyses and empirical investigations work, and supported by open-minded examination to arrive at the most reliable paths to reach their goals.

Those running scared of right-wing populists may want progressives to start espousing blinkered views because they think that would be an electoral asset. But the rest of us should enhance our outreach and cooperate with all citizens in learning to test out what will really help us individually and collectively.

We should be confident in our inclusive values and proud of our open-mindedness.

The Politics of Saints & Sinners

When more people want their political leaders to be absolute saints who stand on the side of the angels on every conceivable issue, the less likely it is they will find anyone good enough for them to help society in times of need. By contrast, when more people are ready to follow sinners as long as they take pride in committing one of their favourite sins, the more likely irredeemable scoundrels will win political power.

The seekers of ideological saints feel very strongly that no one is worthy of their support unless they back and act on the most impeccable principles in relation to every aspect of life. Even if their policy stance is sound on many issues, any shortcoming in a single area could be enough to render them unfit to lead. As for their personal behaviour, if there is the slightest indication that they do not meet the highest standards at all times, that would be considered utterly unacceptable. So, unless you are ready to tackle poverty, climate change, inequality, problems with the criminal justice system, arms deals with oppressive regimes, industrial decline, crumbling infrastructure, underfunded health service, deficient education provision, and behave with due courtesy with everyone all the time, you will be rejected as a hopelessly flawed candidate.

The acolytes of charismatic sinners, on the other hand, are not at all bothered by their sinning, so long as they are willing, or indeed enthusiastic, when it comes to promoting some reprehensible deed they rather adore. Take, for example, making money for oneself while ruining the environment for everyone else; hurling sexist and racist abuse at women and minorities; pocketing profits generated by workers and paying them a pittance; inciting hatred against immigrants and refugees; championing capital punishment regardless of unsafe convictions; or dropping bombs on civilians abroad as a show of military strength. Politicians who embrace one or two of these will win admiration from people who don’t mind if they are not 100% committed to every one of them. Furthermore, even if their personal behaviour is routinely dishonest or degenerate, they are forgiven.

Thus, in politics, the greater the demand for saints, the higher the bar is set for politicians who are keen to serve the public interest. However hard they try, they are castigated and swiftly lose support for falling short on one issue or another. Meanwhile, the psychology of sinners keeps lowering the bar until it hits rock bottom. Any charlatan who is happy to push one or another of the negative buttons (proudly labelled by serial sinners as ‘politically incorrect’) will attract loyal supporters irrespective of their corrupt, nasty, and deceitful actions.

Some may think that the long wait for saints to come along is worthwhile because we need supremely principled people who will do the right thing on everything. But in practice, there are numerous contradictory demands and competing priorities. Anyone honest and wanting to get things done will have to make compromises. To maintain the image of saintliness, a politician would have to pontificate righteously on every issue, but fudge and avoid taking any action whenever a hard choice has to be made. And in that time, the sinners who have won power will carry on with one vile act after another, and getting away with it all.

To remove the sinners, stop looking for saints.

You Say You Want a Constitution

Many people who champion liberal, progressive causes seem to believe that a written constitution is something we should call for.

But while one may hope that a written constitution will spell out exactly what from a progressive perspective should be carried out or forbidden, and enshrine the highest commitment to ensure that no violation will be permitted, there is no guarantee that this will happen in practice. A written constitution could just as easily codify ideas and practices that are ambiguous or potentially undesirable.

What if we have a written constitution that rules out any organised action by workers to challenge their employers; forbids interracial or gay marriage; grants immunity from prosecution to anyone who can pay a large fee to the state; or gives one supreme leader the unquestionable power to order the execution of any individual that leader declares to be a dangerous enemy?

Who is to say a written constitution will encapsulate our aspirations as opposed to what authoritarians and plutocrats want?

It is often suggested that the task of drafting a written constitution should be given to some form of citizens’ assembly, whereby a demographically representative group of randomly selected citizens will deliberate and formulate what should be included in a written constitution. Yet even if such a process could be secured, with impartial facilitation and expert guidance, and a set of proposals were to emerge, who is to be given the authority to deem the proposals sound and adopt the draft constitution formally?

Should the existing legislature make the decision? If that is done on the basis of a simple majority, the provisions can in future be overturned by a simple majority; in which case, the written constitution would be as readily amendable as any ordinary law. Or, one can insist that the adoption of the constitution (and any future revision) must be by a special majority (e.g., two thirds, four fifths) in the legislature, but either that is uniquely binding (in which case, the question arises as to why this special majority threshold should be respected; and to argue that it is set out in the draft constitution would simply be begging the question); if not, the very clause relating to special majority can itself be made void by the legislature repealing it with a simple majority.

Another possibility would be to put the draft constitution to a referendum. But we have seen how without proper safeguards, the holding of a referendum simply opens the door to mass deception, law-breaking that corrupts the voting process, and on-going distortion of what option is allegedly selected when none of the options is ever clearly explained in a binding manner. In the absence of due process and adequate enforcement, data manipulators and authoritarian propagandists can ‘win’ a referendum for the most oppressive constitution, and proclaim that all citizens must accept it as legitimate.

Finally, even if a seemingly sensible constitution is adopted, we have the issue of interpretation and revision to deal with. Laws are subject to interpretations that are tested in court and can be altered by the legislature on a simple majority. But any clause in a written constitution is accorded a higher status, and instead of any dissatisfaction with the law being resolved by the elected members of the legislature, contention over what a given provision requires of us is to be settled by the most senior court of the land. In practice, as the experience of the US has shown, when it comes to hotly disputed issues, more often than not, the judges on the supreme court will vote in line with the political party of the President who put them on the court in the first place (which could have happened ten, twenty or more years ago). So, instead of key issues (such as gun control, corporate involvement in elections, abortion, etc) being determined by the current elected representatives of the people, they will be decided mostly by people appointed on a partisan basis by politicians who are very likely no longer in office.

This is not to say we should not have a written constitution. But before we invite a government led by someone like Boris Johnson or any other self-absorbed demagogue to produce one, we had better get some satisfactory answers to the problems flagged up above.

Shameless Subversion: Con politics explained

In news commentary and academic writings, one still frequently comes across attempts to encapsulate Con politics as some kind of ideological doctrine that merits critical examination. Analysts and scholars try to compare the merits of Neo-Conservatism/Neo-Liberalism with progressive alternatives, and discuss them in connection with rival philosophical and economic theories. But that is simply falling for the Con.

Con politics is not an ideological doctrine at all. It is a manipulative strategy to win support and power to advance its advocates’ position and wealth. It has no coherence except for an underlying focus on saying anything – regardless of their vacuity, incompatibility with other things said, harmfulness, or untenability – so long as it can help to deceive more people into backing its quest for political power.

Let us look at a few examples.

Con politics pretends to be religious, to be on the side of God. But its ‘God’ is a mask for hatred and intolerance. When sacred texts enjoin people to love their neighbours and care for strangers, they ignore them in favour of self-styled preachers who spread venom against the weak and vulnerable instead. When the Pope or an imam speaks out against bigotry and violence, they are dismissed as unrepresentative of the ‘true’ faith. Con politicians have no real religious integrity, just a readiness to invoke ‘God’ arbitrarily to justify whatever nasty rhetoric and policy they want to run with.

Con politics positions itself as being supremely concerned with security, but it promotes the spread of weapons at the domestic and global level so that insecurity grows, and more money can be made for the makers and sellers of weapons from handguns to missiles. In the name of security, it also calls for mass surveillance and intrusion into citizens’ privacy, except for its wealthy supporters who can keep their offshore accounts secret.

Security is swiftly thrown overboard when liberty can be shouted out as the ultimate value. Freedom from government control is the cover given for irresponsible businesses selling unsafe products, exploiting workers, and polluting the environment. Freedom of speech is the cover given for spreading lies and hate-mongering. Adam Smith is deified and his writings, like those of any ‘divine’ texts, are misinterpreted and selectively quoted to create the myth of the ‘free’ market devoid of Smith’s advocacy for appropriate government intervention.

Freedom from state intrusion is in turn jettisoned whenever it fits with the latest Con trick. It proclaims the need to keep government at bay, except when it comes to preventing women from making abortion decisions, sentencing people to death on the basis of trial procedures which are flawed, or punishing people for wanting to end their days of terminal illness with unendurable pain.

The Con cloaks itself with the flag and false patriotism. It talks about the country’s greatness even as it pushes for diminished support for the health and education of citizens. It condemns the poor, homeless, disabled as people who have not made enough of an effort to help themselves. It sends young men and women to fight and die on foreign soil while it concocts excuses for its rich advocates to stay out of military duties.

Above all, it embraces fascist sentiments and attacks its critics as ‘fascists’; it pumps out fabrications by the hour and denounces those who expose its deceptiveness as purveyors of ‘fake news’; and it shrugs off public accountability while censures honourable people who challenge them as ‘enemies of the people’.

Con politics is a shameless subversion of all that is good and decent in society. No one should waste time on discerning what doctrine it espouses. Just expose it as the Con that it is from beginning to end.

Where is the Jobs Manifesto?

Politicians are increasingly divided into two camps. On the one side there are those who are convinced that they can win power by stirring up xenophobia – build a wall to keep Mexicans out; scream for Brexit to keep EU citizens out; blame immigrants for everything. On the other side there are those who frown on such xenophobic manipulations, and want to take power away from their champions. Unfortunately, the second group have been so concerned with exposing the egoism and deceit of jingoistic charlatans that they have forgotten to address what citizens most need from their political leaders – a manifesto for jobs.

Jobs are important not only because they enable people to meet their basic needs in terms of sustenance and shelter, but they also hold the key to giving people a sense of identity, self-respect, and autonomy. We all want to make a difference, to contribute to something bigger than ourselves, to be recognised as being ready to shoulder responsibilities for the wellbeing of others.

While xenophobic demagogues have been spreading their lies and fanning hatred, the crisis of low pay and job insecurity continues to worsen. The best way to defeat them is to deal with the underlying socio-economic problem of precarious employment. A political commitment to generate decent job opportunities for all is what is urgently called for. And in case anyone thinks that is not possible, here are at least four things that can be done.

First, place a legal obligation on firms profiting from the spread of labour-displacement technology to invest in training for workers to take up roles in companies that focus on quality personal service, and in business development support for enterprises with such a focus. Secondly, provide advice and start-up investment for the setting up and growth of worker cooperatives, and offer guidance on protection from demutualisation. Thirdly, tackle staffing shortages in key public services such as health, education, policing, and housing with a sustained programme of training, recruitment, and retention. Fourthly, give backing to local development projects where local service and employment needs are prioritised through devolved management, and day-to-day personal contact and relationships are appreciated in preference to automated communications that are remote and unresponsive.

There are many progressive economists, community finance pioneers, and experienced strategists for sustainable employment who can refine and expand on these and other ideas. Although it is important to unmask the con perpetrated by xenophobic ‘populists’, the battle for prosperity and decency cannot be won unless the spectre of precarious employment is cast away.

If we want people to turn away from scoundrels and hatemongers, we must come up with a robust and unequivocal manifesto for jobs.