Ethics
The abuse of power is profoundly unappealing. It would seem that Starmer enjoys it.
Angela Rayner has made it clear she wants Diane Abbott back in the Labour fold, with the whip restored.
So has Ed Balls. I doubt he would have said this without talking to Yvette Cooper, his wife.
The mood on the BBC’s Question Time last night was very supportive of Abbott.
Keir Starmer is very clearly letting it be known he does not give a damn, or stories of the sort in The Guardian today saying there is no link between the Hester comments and the Whip being restored would not be possible. This stuff is based on deliberately placed comments.
So, Starmer is only too happy to exploit Tory abuse of Diane Abbott.
At the same time he is quite unwilling to say whether she may be a candidate in the general election that could still be little more than weeks away.
If that is not intimidation and abuse by Starmer I do not know what else it might be described as.
Diane Abbott is a flawed human being. So are we all. So too is Keir Starmer. But he wants to play God with the power that he has. People like that are very dangerous. The abuse of power is profoundly unappealing. It would seem that Starmer enjoys it.
Gove is following Goebbels’ advice
The government has published its new definition of extremism this morning. It says of this:
The new definition provides a stricter characterisation that government can use to make sure that extremist organisations and individuals are not being legitimised or given a platform through their interactions with government.
The definition is:
Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
-
negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
-
undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
-
intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).
They added, by way of explanation:
The new definition is narrower and more precise than the 2011 Prevent definition, which did not provide the detail we now need to assess and identify extremism. This new definition helps clearly articulate how extremism is evidenced through the public behaviour of extremists that advance their violent, hateful or intolerant aims.
Try as I might, the only organisation that I can think of that meets the new criteria for being an extremist organisation is the current government, populated as it is by Conservative party ministers.
They prorogued parliament, illegally.
They have sought to pass legislation contrary to international law on more than one issue
They are actively undermining devolved democracy.
They have sought to deny the vote to millions of young people on a discriminatory basis, with older people not suffering the extreme prejudice that younger people do when it comes to proving their entitlement to partake in democracy.
They openly promote division and hatred within society.
They are accepting funds from those who appear to hold racist views.
The right to freedom of speech and protest is being actively denied, including in our legal system.
Try as I might I can think of no one else so actively engaged in the pursuit of the destruction of liberal democracy in this country.
It was Goebbels who suggested that a propagandist should accuse their enemy of that of which they themselves are guilty. This is what appears to be happening here.
Is this place fair to me?
I accused Rachael Reeves yesterday of finding it ‘really difficult to make any decisions when [she] lacks a moral compass, a political philosophy, and any rational explanation for why [she] seeks the power [she] so obviously craves.’
I am surprised that no one challenged me as a consequence to specify what my own success criteria might be for the role of Chancellor. The obvious answer overlaps with discussion, also on this site yesterday, on the thinking of John Rawls that has appealed to me for a very long time.
My suggestion is that the goal of a left-of-centre political economy is to create a state where anyone, whoever they might be, and whatever their origin, gender or orientation, or whatever their wealth or income, or age or education; should be able to live in a country and affirmatively answer the question ‘is this place fair to me?’ If a reasonable person could always do so then political economic justice would have been delivered. If they could not then that would not be the case.
Saying that, I recognise that the word ‘reasonable’ in that last sentence might be doing a lot of work, but if we presume that in practice a double reasonableness test is in use i.e. the test is that a reasonable person might reasonably believe that outcome to be true, or not, then I think that the test is fair. This is a now commonly used legal concept, close only approximating to the ‘person on the Clapham omnibus’ test.
Comments are welcome.
No wonder so many politicians hate the arts in all their forms
Having waxed almost lyrical on the power of the written word in another post this morning on the power of writing, I am overdue to share this piece in a different medium from another creative friend, Mark Northfield:
As Mark said of this to me in an email:
This one is a musically symbolic classical instrumental with a very obvious ‘message’, developed from one of my rough homemade piano recordings posted back in March 2022.
It's a more fully realised and properly recorded trio arrangement entwining the official anthem of Europe - Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’, of course - with the national anthem of Ukraine.
As the piece progresses, Russia’s invasion (and Putin’s imperial ambition) is noted with a brief use of Mussorgsky from ‘The Great Gate of Kiev’ movement of Pictures At An Exhibition. However, the two anthems resume with vigour and entwine once more with greater complexity, finishing the piece in defiance and determination.
Mark timed the release of this piece to mark the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I am late in sharing it. I do so now, noting again the idea that a person possessed of a powerful idea and the means to express it has real power. No wonder so many politicians hate the arts in all their forms.
The Yeats sisters: a magnificent celebration
I watched Imelda May’s fascinating programme on Sky Arts last night, in which she explored the story of the Yeats sisters, Elizabeth and Susan, who were usually known as Lolly and Lily.
Now apparently (and certainly to me) unknown, they were the sisters of the Irish poet, William Butler Yeats. They were profoundly influential in his life, not least, because they printed and published the first editions of many of his works through their Dublin based Cuala Press.
I was pleased that both their father and brothers made only peripheral appearances in this programme. It was, rightly, a celebration of two profoundly intelligent and diligent women who through their work had a major impact on the arts and crafts movement in Ireland, and beyond, in the period from 1900 to 1940.
Lily Yeats’ work as an embroiderer and artist was displayed, and it was truly magnificent, especially (in my opinion) when she avoided people and animals and instead celebrated the landscape.
What, however, truly fascinated me was the work of the Press itself .
I love letter press printing. There is something extraordinarily powerful about this form of creation, which becomes art in itself.
What I do, have to admit, though is that the love in question is the result of an idea that I have held dear since I was a teenager. That is that a person possessed of an idea, the means to put it on paper, and a mechanism to reproduce it has the most powerful possible tool to influence the world in which they live. I have never changed my belief about this and I know that my fascination with writing and everything to do with its recreation will, for me, never end. I did in that sense feel a very powerful affinity with what Lolly Yeats, in particular, was doing with the Cuala press.
The fact that they first published so many of the writers whose work I absorbed in my twenties and thirties when I was seeking to understand Ireland, its history, its independence and the movement that eventually delivered that freedom was something of which I was not previously aware. That left me both enthused, and a little annoyed. That these sisters’ role went unacknowledged whilst their brother is so well-known is such a powerful symbol of cultural oppression, and makes the point that International Women’s Day, which this programme marked, is still deeply relevant.
It also helps that I am an enormous fan of Imelda May’s work that now exist in an increasing variety of forms. She is herself a force of nature, willing to take the risk to say things that others know, but are not willing to express. She was the right person to explore the Yeats sisters’ courage, and her enthusiasm was both obvious and very genuine.
I have been writing with the intention of seeing my words in print since my early teenage years. The roles of the publisher, editor, designer and printer are too often ignored in all of that process. Last night’s programme was a true celebration of two exceptional sisters and I am delighted to have watched it. It was great work by all involved.
Video: Merseyside Metro Mayor Rotheram refuses to say Israel is committing genocide
Rotheram says he’s come to ‘speak to the community’ – but apparently not to the member of the community asking him to give a simple yes or no answer
Merseyside ‘metro mayor’ Steve Rotheram has been confronted by a local woman who asked for a yes or no answer whether Israel’s slaughter of Palestinian civilians is genocide.
Rotheram squirmed, he obfuscated – but he wouldn’t even give a multi-worded answer, let alone a yes or no one. Nor would he ask the local woman whether she thought it’s genocide, so she can show how simple it is to say.
Instead, he wittered about ‘part of the problem’ and wanting to ‘speak to the community’ while having ‘a private conversation’ (which is it, Steve?):
Video used by courtesy of The Art of Resistance
Keir Starmer’s corrupting influence on the Labour party is seen all too clearly in the actions of many local ‘Labour’ politicians – and Starmer’s war on anyone within the party who dares speak out against the actions of Israel has many party representatives too terrified to do so, in spite of the overwhelming moral need for solidarity with Palestinians and condemnation of Israel’s genocide – yes, genocide. Sadly, it seems like Mayor Rotheram is one of them, despite the massive solidarity among the people of Merseyside with the oppressed and murdered in Gaza and the West Bank.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
There is no ‘other’
I put this on Twitter last night:
What Sunak and his far-right allies want to create with their pernicious rhetoric of unity, to which Labour subscribes, is a feeling of inclusion for some in a group from which others are most definitely excluded.
To beat this politics built on hate, austerity and the denial of rights we need to build a politics based on generosity of spirit and material wellbeing coupled with an embrace of the differences that make the unique peculiarities that each of us possess into the people that we are, and wish to be accepted as. Is that an impossible dream?
It was not an ideal Tweet. Instead it was more like a placeholder for an idea based on a number of themes.
One is the ever-growing awareness of how awful the Tories are.
Another is a deep-seated perception of their embrace of the fascist idea of there being an ‘other’ who must be vilified.
Then there is Labour’s lack of willing to call this out.
But perhaps most of all there is the realisation that the need for a new, unifying, narrative within politics is very high.
After that there is my belief that any such narrative has to simultaneously accept the imperative of collective co-existence and the innate requirement that this be fair whilst at the same time recognising that the differences between us have to be accepted and even celebrated because they are what make us unique so that we can stand out in a world where our obvious need for company and mutuality is ever-present.
A wise person once summarised this as loving our neighbours as ourselves, but I am going further than that.
The Tory view of British values
Rishi Sunak spoke yesterday of the need for the government, police and others to stand up against those who oppose British values. But, just what are those values? Based upon careful consideration of his governments, comments, conduct and legislation, it would seem that they include:
- Racism
- Discrimination, of all sorts
- A tolerance of :
- Misogyny
- Increasing inequality
- Climate change denial
- Wealth built upon slavery and colonial exploitation
- English nationalism to the exclusion of the Welsh, Scottish and people of Northern Ireland
- Economic exploitation
- Corruption
- Genocide
- Tax havens
- Hunting with dogs
- Undermining of the rule of law
- Vilification of public servants
- Vote rigging and gerrymandering
- A refusal to honour legal obligations
- A dislike of:
- Those who work for a living
- Social housing
- The young
- Those on low incomes
- Those with disabilities
- Single parents
- Any type of non-heterosexual orientation
- Intolerance of
- The SNP
- Plaid Cymru
- The Green Party
- Scotland
- Wales
- Northern Ireland
- Ireland
- The EU and all its member states
- State schools
- Libraries
- Theatre
- The arts
- The NHS
- Anyone claiming a benefit, including the state pension, unless they also have a significant private pension as well, when doing so is just fine
- Those who are members of:
- The National Trust
- RSPB
- Oxfam
- XR
- A Wildlife Trust
- Any faith but Christianity and Judaism, but with an honourable pass being given for Hindus right now
In contrast, it would seem that supporting the following are all clear indications of holding an opinion contrary to British values:
- Free and fair elections
- Proportional representation
- An end to discrimination in the right to vote
- An end to discrimination, full stop
- Respect for human rights
- Respect for the rule of law
- Justice
- A right to economic and social equality
- Free speech
- The right to protest
- Action to tackle climate change
- Support for the Green New Deal
- Religious tolerance
- Social tolerance
- National self-determination
- The right to have enough to eat
- The right to a roof over your head
- Speed limits
- Peace
You no longer need to be paranoid to think the government are coming for you when they most probably are.
This might well be the best commentary I have read on Sunak’s announcement yesterday. To put this in context, Caroline Slocock was Thatcher’s private secretary.
The reference at the end is to this site.
Let me contextualise this. This is all part of the ‘woke’ agenda and there is nothing the government would like to do more than officially describe the National Trust as an organisation not promoting British values.
Be worried. You no longer need to be paranoid to think they are coming for you when if you have the slightest association with any environmentally concerned organisation they most probably are.
Most people want politicians who stand up for ethical positions, and very rarely are they extreme ones
I would like to reflect on something other than the failure of British (and maybe broader politics) to reflect the views of moderate people this morning, but that is hard to do.
I have already commented on George Galloway’s win in Rochdale. I won’t repeat the comments I made there. But there is more to say.
This is most especially true because of the implicit message in this vote. Muslim people were saying that they do not want to be oppressed.
There should get nothing surprising about this message. Who would want to be oppressed? If there has been a persistent theme in politics over the last 200 or so years it has been the desire to end oppression. It was reflected in the campaign for universal suffrage. Since then it has been reflected in the rightful demand for equality and respect for differences.
Now we are backsliding on both fronts. The Tories are openly gerrymandering, restricting the rights of younger and poorer people to vote in particular using totally trumped up arguments. Labour can’t even field candidates and will not stand up for democratic reforms. No wonder we are in a mess.
And then there is backsliding on equality. Women are not being protected, as recent reports on policing make clear. There is no desire in the police to be rid of misogyny.
The whole LGBTQ+ community feels under threat, and with good reason.
Debate on anti-Semitism now has an apparent entry requirement that those partaking be Zionist and support a fascist government in Israel.
The government is fuelling racist sentiment via its immigration policy.
Anti-Islamic feeling is rife amongst Tories.
And meanwhile, Labour and Tories alike appear all too happy to crack down on demonstrations and the right to free speech when the measures available (excepting, perhaps, in the immediate vicinity of MP’s homes where their families, friends and neighbours do need protection) are more than adequate to deal with any risks, and are already draconian in far too many cases.
All this is about the fostering of extremism, not least by our mainstream political parties, who seem to be far too willing to adopt intolerant positions.
Most moderate people welcome people, whoever they are.
They understand differences and the need to respect them.
They abhor discrimination because there has been the most incredible change in mindsets in my lifetime.
They hate fascism and those who promote it, because they know the harm it causes.
They also loathe corruption.
And they will not stand aside and tolerate genocide.
They want action on climate change, nit denial.
They want politicians who stand up for ethical positions, and very rarely are they ever extreme ones. Aristotle understood that long ago. Innately we all do. But it seems that too many of our politicians do not as they move increasingly rapidly towards extreme positions that alienate the moderate majority of the UK, whose tolerance is being abused.
What do we do about this?
First, and foremost, we talk about it.
And we tell all our politicians that take these positions that they are wrong.
That, is where we start.
And then we need the new vision to replace that of all the extremists. And talking about it is the only way to do that.