Ethics
We need to be awake to nature
One of the strangest consequences of running a blog that has quite a high volume of traffic is that I receive a great many press releases a day. Most go straight into the electronic bin, but there are exceptions that demand that I read them. One of those came in from Extinction Rebellion this morning.
It said, and I unashamedly quote:
Extinction Rebellion, BBC Wildlife legend Chris Packham and tens of thousands of members of the public will ‘unite for nature’ by joining a legal and family-friendly demonstration on the streets of central London on Saturday 22 June 2024.
Backed by a wide-range of nature, wildlife and climate groups, from RSPB to the National Trust, the demonstration aims to be the biggest-ever gathering of nature and climate supporters in the UK.
The Restore Nature Now demonstration will bring thousands of people together to call on all political parties to take action to restore nature and tackle climate change in the UK, as one of the worst nations for nature loss.
Environment campaigners are urging everyone who cares for nature to unite and march through London to Parliament Square on Saturday 22 June, with a simple demand to all political parties: Restore Nature Now.
The press release includes quotes from Chris Packham, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts and others. XR is clearly working with them on an agenda that they say demands:
- A pay rise for nature – Farmers manage 70% of UK land and have a huge role to play in supporting environmental recovery. But they need more support. We want to see the nature and climate-friendly farming budget doubled.
- Make polluters pay – Big businesses – from water, to retail, to energy – all contribute to environmental decline. We want new rules to make them contribute to nature and climate recovery, and an end to new fossil fuels.
- More space for nature – Just 3% of English land and 8% of waters are properly protected for nature and wildlife. To meet UK nature and climate commitments we need to expand and improve protected areas, and ensure public land and National Parks contribute more to recovery.
- A right to a healthy environment – Limited access to nature, and pollution in the air and water, affects everyone’s health. We’re calling for a commitment to an Environmental Rights Bill, which would drive better decisions for nature, improve public health and access to high-quality nature.
- Fair and effective climate action – We cannot save nature without solving the climate crisis. We want to see investment in warm homes and lower bills by increasing home energy efficiency, supporting active travel and public transport, and replacing polluting fossil fuels with affordable renewables to ensure we at least halve UK emissions by 2030.
As they also note:
Polls have revealed that the British public is highly concerned over inadequate UK climate and nature action. Results from two UK-wide surveys conducted by The Wildlife Trusts showed that irrespective of voting choice, nature matters to people across the electorate, with 93% of voters reporting that they believe nature loss is a serious threat to humanity. Recent YouGov UK polling on behalf of WWF-UK also showed that the majority of people (70%) think it’s possible to avoid the worst effects of climate change but more than half (58%) think it’s only possible with more drastic action.
I am in that last category.
As a founder member of the Green New Deal Group, as well as an enthusiast for nature, I unsurprisingly support these demands made by organisations, many of which I belong to. I will look to take part in this activity in some way.
There is, however, I think much more to this. As John Harris suggested in an article in the Guardian earlier this week, our attitude towards nature might now represent the real faultline in politics and the source of the new radicalism that we need if our society is to survive.
Business does, through its actions, deny the reality that we are facing. For example, I noted a Telegraph headline this morning suggesting that airports want more tax exemptions for tourists to encourage greater air travel to the UK, which is exactly the opposite of what our planet needs.
Similarly, tech companies work their very hardest to make sure that children’s exposure to nature is minimised as their screen time is maximised. In the process they undermine the understanding that our existence is utterly dependent upon our relationship with nature, which relationship is in peril.
Despite these best efforts by those businesses and others, I am also quite sure that a growing majority are aware of the risks that we face. There may not be enough people willing to take action as yet. Far too many remain dedicated to consumption-based lifestyles. The reality of the need for change has not permeated the consciousness of sufficient people as yet, but maybe it is beginning to be a major concern for enough people to effect change.
That is my hope. That is why I share this. That is why I am more than happy to be considered decidedly woke on this issue. I am awake to nature. We need everyone to be so.
What is fair when it comes to tax?
I posted this video on YouTube this morning:
This is the transcript:
Taxes should be fair. I think that's obvious. Well, it should be to anyone.
They're not in the UK at present because we know that the wealthy underpay tax compared to those on lower incomes, and that's one of the reasons why I wrote the Taxing Wealth Report, precisely because we do need to redistribute income and wealth from those who've got high levels of both to those who have very little of either.
So obviously, that's one reason why we can increase tax fairness, but we need some sort of guide as to what we mean about tax fairness. And in the Taxing Wealth Report, I use two guides. One is horizontal tax equity, and one is vertical tax equity. Now, let's just explain what they are.
Horizontal tax equity means that one pound arriving in your pocket from whatever the source should be taxed the same way, whatever that source was.
So, if you got your earnings from work, say one pound, then I am saying that the tax due on that should be the same as if you got that one pound from interest received, or rents, or capital gains, or anything else. Whatever the source of your profit, the one pound that increases your well-being - because we generally recognize that more money available to you does usually increase well-being - the amount of tax you pay should be the same.
That is the argument that horizontal tax equity makes, and that is why, for example, I argue that capital gains should be taxed at income tax rates. It's straightforward, it's clear, it's obvious, and “£1 is £1 from wherever it comes” is a simple motto but it's absolutely true as well.
Vertical tax equity is a different form of tax justice.
Vertical tax equity says that those on low incomes who lose a pound in tax suffer much more in terms of their well-being than a person who's on a million pounds a year who pays £1 in tax.
Why? Because the person with a million a year doesn't frankly notice whether they've got one pound more or less. The marginal cost of them giving up one pound in tax is insignificant because they don't notice the difference, whereas the person on a very low income does notice the difference. So, what vertical tax equity tries to do is equalize the broad cost in terms of well-being foregone of tax paid.
The result is that the tax system must be progressive. Those on low incomes must pay a much lower proportion of their income in tax than those on high incomes because, relatively speaking, the impact on their well-beings is equal. And that is tax justice.
We haven't got that at present. We need to have it.
The Taxing Wealth Report tries to produce that outcome. It's a move towards a fairer tax system for the benefit of everyone - and I stress everyone - in the UK
Without providing safe routes for potential refugees Keir Starmer has no way of stopping the boats
I watched Keir Starmer talking on a news bulletin last night and heard him say, in words that echo those of Rishi Sunak, that we “have to stop the boats“.
He was, of course, referring to the inflatable craft being used by those seeking asylum in the UK to cross the English Channel when no other route is available to them before they can make an application to live in this country.
Starmer’s reasoning for this claim was that these boats are evidence that we have lost control of our borders. There was no hint of humanitarian concern. There was no suggestion in what was clipped as to how he would deal with the issue. There was no expression of interest in the broader issues that this crisis raises, whether for this country, for others, or for the future flows of migration that are inevitably going to increase as climate change becomes more severe. Instead, only the expression was that of a bureaucrat offended by action that upsets the routine that they desire, which is how it seems that he views this activity.
I am not naive. I am, of course, well aware that some of those who might cross the English Channel do so because they are being trafficked. However, in that case, they deserve protection from those abusing them.
I am equally aware that some of those who might be taking this perilous route do so simply because they are economically desperate, and not because they are at genuine risk in the countries from which they come. There is, in that case, obvious need for some mechanisms to sort those who are really refugees, from those who are seeking what is illegal entry.
However, what we do know is that a substantial majority of those who make this crossing do succeed with their asylum claim, despite the existence of a system which stacks the odds against them. In other words it would be wise to presume that those who have reached the English Channel have done so as a consequence of a state of genuine desperation. The willingness to go through the trauma of this process will, in a great many cases, be the clearest indication of that.
So, if Starmer is to provide an alternative, and this will no doubt become his responsibility, what should he do?
Firstly, there should be an assumption that those claiming refugee status probably have it. I am not suggesting that this means that they be given an automatic right of entry into the UK. Both politically and practically that is not plausible or viable. There must, in that case, be a filtering process to determine which applications succeed, and which fail, That necessary process must, however, be undertaken humanely, with a degree of sympathy for the likely refugees plight, and with the assistance provided so that those with a proper case can be identified, assisting in the process the identification of those acting inappropriately.
Secondly, as so many with expertise in this area have suggested, this process could take place in France. At the very least, initial vetting should be possible there, with mutual cooperation between the UK and France to make this possible. I am aware of all the inconvenience to France that those seeking entry to the UK creates, but given that they have no choice but face this issue, redirecting funds away from creating criminality towards assistance, speedy decision making, and facilitation of rapid transit if that is the right outcome, would be in everyone’s best interests. It might also cost considerably less than current attempts to address this problem.
Thirdly, and most obviously, this then provide the opportunity to stop the boats. Those able to cross the Channel could then do so using safe routes , like ferries, with tickets provided, and buses to ensure their appropriate onward transport.
Fourthly, if despite this, there were then to still be small boat traffic the likelihood that it would involve those with a limited chance of a right entry is high. In that case a changed approach towards policing of that activity could take place on both sides of the Channel, whilst still requiring a continued open-mind on the need to protect those who might be trafficked.
I am not sure why it is so hard for Keir Starmer to explain such a potential policy. At the heart of any solution to this problem there has to be a method that differentiating those who are likely to have a legitimate claim of entry to the UK under international law from those who have not got that right. Until that happens, the prospect of successfully persuading France, or any other country, to treat what is happening as an illegal activity is low, which is why I understand their reluctance to overly deter this traffic. They know that legitimate refugees are those most commonly to be found amongst those on the beaches of Northern France. Do they have to stop them in that case? Until that changes - which it is only in our power to do - why should they?
Only when those in small boats are those most likely to not have a good claim for entry into the UK can successful action against this traffic begin. I would have thought Keir Starmer would understand that. I would have hoped that he would want to. I would equally hope that he will want to make sure that we act humanely and with sympathy to those in a desperate situation. But perhaps I am naive, after all, in believing that this is what he might think.
As disasters go, the Rwanda Bill knows almost no limits.
The Lords gave in to the Commons on the Safety of Rwanda Bill last night, as ultimately they must. Democracy is sovereign and if those who have been elected insist that red is blue then the Lords, having used their best endeavours to request that the Commons change its mind, must give way even though they know that what the Commons is claiming is wrong.
This is what happened last night. The Lords eventually agreed to let a Bill promoted by a corrupt and racist government pass despite all the false claims within it. Rwanda is not safe, whatever the Tories say.
The Lords are also right that the damage to the UK’s reputation as an upholder of international law will be considerable.
The law that will now be enacted is also absurd. Instead of in any way solving the problem of migration it will throw vast sums of money at token gesture deportations that will be devastating for those involved, including most of the public servants who will have to be engaged in this process. It is not even clear, as yet, that any planes will be found to undertake the necessary flights to Rwanda.
And at the end of the day, after all this waste of effort, political capital, international reputation and money, the policy will not work. The chance of being deported to Rwanda will be so small, so extraordinary is the cost of each person deported and so limited is the capacity to actually secure agreement for anyone to leave, that the deterrent effect on those seeking to cross the Channel will be precisely zero. The boats will not be stopped, and that was the aim, racist as it always was.
So, what has been achieved by the Tories? They have proved that they are racist, vindictive, callous and straightforwardly cruel.
They have evidenced that the truth does not matter to them, and nor does the rule of law.
They have delivered overwhelming evidence of their ability to waste public funds when it suits them.
Most of all, they have shown that they are liars. Rwanda is not safe, even if they have passed a law saying it is, contrary to all the evidence.
So, electorally I think this also backfires for them. As disasters go, this one knows almost no limits.
The absurdity was apparent in comments by Tim Loughton MP on Sky last night. His claim was that we must have somewhere to send people who came to the UK who we decide are not refugees but who could not be returned to their country of origin because they would be refused entry there or they would be harmed if they did return. In other words, they are undoubtedly refugees with a right to asylum but we just do not want them, which contravenes international law. He then wanted them sent to Rwanda, with a dubious recent history on this issue.
You could not make such absurd claims up, but he offered then as if he was sincere. If he was then he also proved he will be doing politics a public service at the next election by standing down. In the kindest possible comment I can offer, let me suggest that he clearly is unable to construct coherent thoughts.
And meanwhile, some poor refugees will suffer the most inhumane treatment by this government. It is my hope that lawyers will still be able to find ways to obstruct their evil desires. What else is Common Law for?
One Planet, Many Worlds: The Climate Parallax – review
In One Planet, Many Worlds: The Climate Parallax, Dipesh Chakrabarty examines human interrelatedness with, and responsibility within, the Earth System from a decolonial perspective. Drawing on a diverse range of disciplines, this book is a critical intervention that considers perspectival gaps and differences around the climate crisis, writes Elisabeth Wennerström.
One Planet, Many Worlds: The Climate Parallax. Dipesh Chakrabarty. Brandeis University Press. 2023.
In One Planet, Many Worlds, Dipesh Chakrabarty addresses existing perspectival gaps and differences around the Earth System. This latter term can be understood from the International Biosphere-Geosphere Programme’s definition (7) as a system integrated with the planet’s physical, chemical, and biological processes, of which humans are a part. Chakrabarty makes the “globe/planet distinction” (3) to navigate the climate crisis alongside the Earth System. The parallax is a helpful yet critical concept highlighting how appearances change depending on where the focal point rests.
Climate awareness is not a new concern, and the distribution of adverse climate impacts is highly unequal
The case in point: climate awareness is not a new concern, and the distribution of adverse climate impacts is highly unequal. Chakrabarty asserts that failures to act in relation to the Earth System are evidenced not only by the climate crisis but also in energy extraction politics (eg, 9 and19) and global justice debates (eg, 43 and 79). In contrast, he cites Kant’s emphasis on the “categorical imperative” to follow moral laws, regardless of their desires or extenuating circumstances. Arendt is further emphasised in the case for collective action. But in the Anthropocene, argues Chakrabarty (invoking Kant and Arendt on ethics), there are many signs of how the approach to addressing the climate crisis risks being “bereft of any sense of morality” (6).
Chakrabarty’s research interests intersect with themes in modern South Asian history and historiography, globalisation, climate change, and human history
As a leading scholar of postcolonial theory, comparative studies and the politics of modernity, Chakrabarty’s research interests intersect with themes in modern South Asian history and historiography, globalisation, climate change, and human history. This book demonstrates his extensive commitment to communicating change through a socio-historical narrative. The text is multidisciplinary in scope, moving freely between the natural and social sciences and the humanities. The critical premise is the need to learn from what may appear complex and from what is multifaceted.
He deconstructs “global warming” and “globalisation” by differentiating their relationship to the Earth System (eg, 19-21 and 56). Chakrabarty argues that the Earth System can be delimited as “a heuristic construct” when used in Earth System Science (ESS), wherein scholars’ focus on monitoring geological and biological factors (3). Chakrabarty finds a more fruitful discussion from a continued historicisation of “global histories” and the “geobiological history of the planet” in the different meanings of the “globe” – including “the 500-year-old entity brought into being by humans and their technologies of transport and communication…a human-told story with humans at its center” (3). The discussion includes the COVID-19 pandemic (Chapter One), postcolonial historiographies around an “Earth system” (Chapter Two), and the need to reconcile what Chakrabarty refers to “as ‘the One and the Many’ problem that makes climate change such a difficult issue to tackle” (15) (Chapter Three).
The climate crisis is entangled with political factors, economic growth processes and capitalism, in part seen in the reverberating effects of natural resource extraction
Chakrabarty contends that the climate crisis is entangled with political factors, economic growth processes and capitalism, in part seen in the reverberating effects of natural resource extraction – what many scholars refer to as the Great Acceleration. Complementary notes expand such negotiations to Derrida’s “democracy to come” (60) and Hartog’s discussion on the elements of time and space that pose a particular political problem in the Anthropocene (22, 69, 74). Here, perspectives differ not only over whether Anthropocenic humans lie at the centre, but around the Earth System, which is one while also entailing many differentiated and interrelated processes (7-8). He states: “Any human sense of planetary emergency will have to negotiate the histories of those conflicted and entangled multiplicities” (16).
Many injustices and inequalities in the Anthropocene are repressed, too; he gives the example of how many longed for the pandemic to be over and for life to return to normal, yet when it came to vaccinations, this desire turned political (22). The pandemic shows, according to Chakrabarty, how we are “entwined with the geological – over human scales of time and space” (73).
He references Foucault’s biopolitics where “natural history remains, ultimately, separate from human history” (31), and more of a critique on modern political thought: “We are a minority form of life that has behaved over the last hundred or so years as though the planet was created so that only humans would thrive” (39). In contrast, the biologist Margulis combined three Greek words (hólos for “whole,” bíos for “life,” and óntos for “being”), in the understanding of the holobiont, the superorganism that hosts a myriad of other life, of which humans are a part (38).
Chakrabarty offers no essential framework to address the climate crisis. Still, he contends that the critical question remains how to navigate the present and respond alongside the Earth System.
Chakrabarty offers no essential framework to address the climate crisis. Still, he contends that the critical question remains how to navigate the present and respond alongside the Earth System. He suggests that multiple entry points for the reconfiguration of hegemonic “contemporaneity,” can be found in the writings of thinkers across disciplines – from philosophers, physicists and botanists to activists, marine biologists and anthropologists, including Hartog (69), Latour (71), Todd (95), Winter (96), Haraway (98), and Kimmerer (103). By deconstructing “the globe” he reimagines the contours of connective global histories, citing the impetus of “Haraway and Indigenous philosophers—to make kin, intellectually and across historical difference” (102). Charabarty’s text draws together all these ideas to unpack the asymmetrical patterns of time and space in the Earth System and make a case for global environmental justice. Overall, Chakrabarty’s work One Planet. Many Worlds makes a critical intervention on how to think about the climate crisis, deconstructing the present way of being within the Anthropocene.
Note: This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Triff on Shutterstock.
We need a better song to sing
The Guardian features an interview by John Harris with Caroline Lucas MP this morning.
I’ve known Caroline for almost twenty years now. We are both members of the Green New Deal Group that created the concept of that name, and still works on it.
In the interview reference is made to Caroline’s new book, out last week (and I have not read it as yet). The most telling paragraph is:
[The] book … comes close to suggesting that the left should adopt a completely new mindset. “It’s not enough to have technocratic answers,” she insists. “You’ve got to speak to people’s emotions and tell compelling stories. And I don’t think we on the left are very good at doing that. And so part of this is about reclaiming the power of story and saying that the right must not have complete carte blanche when it comes to choosing the stories to tell about England. Unless we get on the pitch and start telling our own, we lose a way of reaching people that is incredibly resonant and important.”
I completely agree. I describe this as there being the need to find a new song to sing.
Reeves, et al, might think the election can be won by citing fiscal rules, privatisation plans and tweaks they will make. But all of those accept that the existing political narratives will continue unbroken. They can’t. They have to change, because people know they no longer work. That is glaringly obvious, it seems, to everyone but the supposed grown-ups in the room, who are working like fury to deny it.
When will Labour get that? Not ever at their current rate. And that explains the mess we are in. Until we have a better song to sing that explains the world as it not only is but reconciles it with how we think it must be (because there are constraints, most especially in the form of climate, in the real world) then we cannot have hope. And very few politicians are delivering that right now.
Labour has abandoned its environmental commitments. Is it any surprise that UK big business is following its lead?
As the Guardian notes this morning:
Unilever is to scale back its environmental and social aims, provoking critics to say its board should “hang their heads in shame”.
They added:
On Friday, the London-based firm’s current chief executive appeared to signal a strategic U-turn for the company, which is valued at £94bn on the London Stock Exchange. In an interview with Bloomberg, Hein Schumacher confirmed plans to water down the company’s ethical pledges on a range of issues including plastic usage and pay.
There really can be no surprise here. Labour is expected to win the first term of what many will think likely to be at least a two term government this year. They have abandoned their green commitments and budgets. Why wouldn’t business do the same?
Rachel Reeves should take note. Her decisions and smooching around the City have consequences. It is by no means clear that they are good.
Rishi Sunak is to blame for the inability of millions to work
Rishi Sunak has launched am attack on what he calls ‘the sick note culture’. I am, quite frankly, appalled.
Sunak is one of the richest men in the country. He has admitted that his family uses a private GP, let alone private healthcare for more complicated issues.
He is protected by privilege and wealth from the stresses that impact millions of people in the UK.
The possibility that a person might suffer stress as a consequence of their inability to work out where their child’s next meal might come from, or how they might keep a roof over their head, or how they might provide childcare when they go to their third job, which they have to take to meet the extraordinary increases in the cost of living imposed upon them by the Bank of England, or that they might be racked with guilt about their simple inability to provide for those about whom they care, is, I am quite certain, beyond his comprehension.
More than that, I doubt that he has even thought about the need to imagine it. In that case, of course he cannot see why those things that he calls the ‘ordinary stresses and strains’ of life might become, in themselves, totally incapacitating. It takes callousness on a considerable scale for anyone in his position to describe them as such, but that is what he has done.
Worse than that, fourteen years of Tory rule have created the healthcare crisis that we have.
Let’s leave aside the underfunding of the NHS, where funds provided have been insufficient to ensure that demand, not least for mental health services, can be met.
Let’s also leave aside the deliberate attack on the credibility and work ethic of NHS staff since 2021, in which he has played such a major role. Instead, let me just draw attention to other critical factors.
First, there is Covid. Sunak is a key player in the collective denial of the impact of this disease by his government and its predecessors since Boris Johnson decided to claim that its impact had effectively ceased from 2021 onwards.
That claim is complete nonsense. Not only do lots of people still get Covid, but it is as debilitating as ever, in many cases significantly threatening health well-being.
Covid is also a major secondary health risk. Increases in related illnesses, and in particular cardiac-related disease, are significant. The government is trying to pretend that none of this is happening.
Nor are they taking necessary action. For example,they are still doing nothing to provide a guarantee of clean air which is a precondition of good health. It could do that. Moreover, it has been shown that if it did so in school classrooms, where the spread of this disease is so easy, not only would we get major healthcare benefits, but the rate of learning amongst children would increase dramatically, improving education performance across the board. But his government does nothing, because it does not care.
Secondly, the age to which people are expected to work is now increasing. I might be in the fortunate position of being in good health and able to work to the capacity that I have delivered for many years at nominal retirement age, but I am well aware that this really is not normal. Vast numbers of people from their 50s onwards struggle with all sorts of well-being issues related to health that reduce their capacity to work, and too many employers know this and refuse to provide opportunity for those of older age.
Third, Sunak’s government has done nothing whatsoever to address the crises of diabetes, where the type two variant of this disease is entirely treatable. However, that is only possible if major changes in diet are made. This does, in particular, require dramatic reduction in the intake of sugar among the population as a whole, and a significant reduction in the consumption of ultra-processed foods. There is, nothing that could increase health in this country more than doing that, reducing both obesity related illnesses and type two diabetes hospital admissions as a result. Despite this, and despite the fact that this has been known for a very long time, his government has absolutely refused to address this problem. Instead, his health secretary is actually married to the boss of British Sugar. You could hardly make that up.
Then there is the assault on employment rights that this government encouraged. Its goal of a so-called ‘flexible workforce’ has been achieved at the cost of an enormous increase in insecurity for the majority of people in the country, who have suffered a reduction in their economic security as a consequence, giving rise to an increase in their stress. This now seems to have transferred into a widespread inability to work, so disabling is it.
There are, I am sure, other factors in play. But, these are sufficient to make it clear that if there is a responsibility for sickness in the UK then that belongs to Rishi Sunak and his predecessors and his colleagues in office since 2010. There is, quite literally, no one else to blame.
The IMF really needs to work out in whose interests the world economy should be run
The IMF has been sending out some very confused signals from its spring meeting, being held in Brazil this week. If I have read the bulletins that I have received correctly, and appropriately interpreted them within the context of the UK, which some of them specifically address, then the messages appear to be at least fourfold.
Firstly, they are not convinced that the risk of inflation in the UK is over as yet, and so are demanding caution.
Second, they have downgraded UK growth expectations for the year to well under one percent. That appears realistic, especially if in response the their demands on inflation interest rates stay above any reasonably required level.
Third, they suggest that there is no room for tax cuts, which is a political rather than an economic choice on their part, although it is one that I would support.
Fourth, they do, instead of tax cuts, demand investment in public services.
However, and fifth, they also expect that government debt be constrained.
In principle, these various claims are reconcilable. However, they do require a very particular political economic perspective to be taken, which embraces the idea that the capacity of the state is limited, that the creation of money is exogenous to it, and that priority must always be given to private sector activity, even if the basic needs of many are not met.
It really is time that the IMF worked out what the economic priorities of the 21st-century are. In particular, they should appreciate the promoting an environment in which the interests of rent-extracting global monopolies are prioritised is never going to meet the needs of most people. When they have got over serving the interests of that lobby group, we might get more coherent policy from them.
Badenoch’s spinning a totally fabricated yarn about the origins of the UK’s wealth
Kemi Badenoch was reported by the Guardian yesterday to have said:
It worries me when I hear people talk about wealth and success in the UK as being down to colonialism or imperialism or white privilege or whatever.
They added:
Instead, she said the Glorious Revolution of 1688 – which led to the development of the UK constitution and solidified the role of parliament – should be credited for providing the kind of economic certainty that paved the way for the Industrial Revolution.
As I said in the tweet that I issued in response:
There is nonsense, bullshit, fabrication and then whatever it is that Kemi Badenoch has to say on any subject.
If I failed to hide my contempt, I do not apologise.
I almost felt like asking on Twitter “Whatever did the Glorious Revolution do for you?“ Apart from the suppression of Catholicism, the creation of the Bank of England, the institution of the national debt, the imposition of a monarch who believed in the importance of the navy, largely as a weapon for imperialist, colonialist inspired territorial expansion, and who paved the way for the subjection of Scotland to the whim of the English, what did the Glorious Revolution do for you, after all?
The one thing I think we can say with confidence is that it did not deliver the industrial revolution.
It did however fuel demand for income to fund royal fantasies and foibles that most definitely required the exploitation of colonies in the USA, the Caribbean, West Africa and elsewhere.
So is Badenoch wrong? In my opinion, she is not just wrong, but is actively misrepresenting the truth.
Why would she do that? Partly because she does, for her own reasons, wish to deny Britain’s racist past, and present, because her denial of that racism is itself racist, in my opinion.
As significantly, she also wants to deny the role of monopoly-based rentier capitalism and exploitation as the common foundations of the wealth of this country.
She is, instead, pretending that entrepreneurial activity did deliver that wealth. But that is largely untrue. For example, those canal and coal pioneers who, if anyone did, started the industrial revolution later in the 18th century were able to do so on the basis of land ownership, wealth and property, all of which was supported by extraction of profits resulting from privilege, patronage, expropriation, rents and exploitation. Some of that undoubtedly would have been derived from colonial activity.
In that case Badenoch’s commentary does not just fail; it stinks because she is denying the truth and presenting a wholly false, politically inspired narrative that is unsupportable by evidence. But when did someone like her worry about things like that?