Society
Beliefs or purchases?
Remarkably we are now subjected to a ‘prevent’ idea that objects to ‘beliefs’ – including socialism! – but apparently not including neoliberalism or even Conservatism. These pseudo religious beliefs are always liable to attack. That is why knowing – not a belief, but a fact – where money comes from is so important. When you... Read more
The fiscal swearbox…
What a very good idea: So that’s Keir Starmer who would also have to contribute…... Read more
Today’s budget is, like all the others, unnecessary
Indeed the whole idea of today’s ‘budget’ feeds into the trope that Government needs ‘our’ money. It doesn’t. Affordability and maxing out the government national credit card (according to Keir Starmer) were pervasive. Government doesn’t have any need of a financial budget. It does need a resources budget. That is, have we got enough doctors,... Read more
Money creation and tyre pressure
I recommend following Malcolm Reavell if you are on Twitter – he suggests good insights, which even if you don’t agree, are always worth consideration. I particularly liked this recent analogy on money creation: When you go to your local filling station to top up the air in your car tyres, and the compressed air... Read more
Maslow and the best scientific trials we can muster…
I was reminded by the death of the playwright, Edward Bond who is alleged to have thought that depriving people of imagination and education just brutalised them (ain’t that the truth? see too the disastrous decline in arts council funding and in various local councils – in particular Birmingham and Nottingham where their arts contributions... Read more
Ultra Processed ham sandwiches
Political discourse is pretty depressing at the moment – so I thought I’d turn to food – which is, I fear, not much better. The first piece is what in the UK is called, a little more honestly, pre-formed ham and’, like Spam, is delivered, even for counter service, in a large can: The automatic... Read more
This is dark stuff – how the right is controlling politics:
Although effectively none of that narrative is reflected in the views of the British population… This fifteen minutes is I suggest, well worth watching: Peter Oborne shows how the narrative is being swerved and unfortunately (or purposely?) Starmer and the Speaker (certainly the Speaker) have a leading role – we’re being told that Parliament is... Read more
‘Rishi Sunak is “Living Proof” a Prime Minister of Colour is No Evidence of a Britain Beyond Racism’
When Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister in 2022, Asian WhatsApp groups posted memes and messages marking the occasion.
One sent to me depicted Rishi Sunak, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and King Charles mocked up in the original film poster for Amar, Akbar and Anthony – a 1977 Bollywood ‘masala’ movie.
It centres on the story of three brothers separated as children and then adopted and raised by Hindu, Muslim and Christian families. Masala films explored landmark issues of tolerance in Bollywood. And the pride of those sharing the meme was clear: look how far on race and diversity Britain has come.
Nearly a year-and-a-half on, the fallacy of this 'watershed’ represented by people of colour in positions of power has been exposed by Sunak himself.
In the wake of comments by former Conservative Deputy Chair Lee Anderson – baselessly and conspiratorially claiming that Sadiq Khan, who is Muslim, has handed the city to “Islamists” – Sunak removed the whip from the MP and said his remarks were “wrong”. But he refused to call them Islamophobic, something Khan (who, as the victim of the claims, is the best judge of how they were received) has been unequivocal about.
This refusal to condemn Anderson’s remarks as racist remarks matters.
Sunak’s response to the Anderson affair was that “any form of prejudice or racism” is unacceptable as that is not who “we are as a country”.
“We’re a proud multi-ethnic democracy, one of the most successful anywhere in the world,” the Prime Minister added.
But if Britain is the “proud multi-ethnic democracy” he describes, and one of the most successful at this "anywhere in the world", how can we explain that it has a Prime Minister who refuses to call racism what it is?
Following the furore, Sunak also said how proud he was to be the UK’s first Asian Prime Minister and that this had happened without note (reading between the lines, he meant objections from the Conservative Party). He is "living proof", he claimed, of Britain's success when it comes to race.
But if he is “living proof” of Britain’s success on race, how can we explain his refusal to call racism what it is?
The Conservative Party led by Sunak has been all too willing to normalise a political culture in which Lee Anderson felt it was acceptable to make such comments. While this may not have started with Sunak, he has been happy to either turn a blind-eye or indulge in the 'culture war’ now eating the party up.
As Peter Oborne has observed, Sunak appears to have a clear strategy faced with the prospect of a heavy defeat in the next general election: ‘other’ minorities and sow fear and division in order to tempt a hard-right base eyeing up the Reform Party. “It’s horrible politics which shames Britain,” writes Oborne. “Enoch Powell will be smiling in his grave.”
For the former political commentator of the Mail, the Telegraph and the Spectator, “there has been an understandable tendency for mainstream commentators to give Sunak an easy ride on the problem of Conservative racism on the basis that he himself comes from an immigrant family. I was initially minded to do so myself. But this argument no longer holds”.
It is an argument I believe never had any substance.
From the beginning of his tenure, Sunak has legitimised the use of racism as a political tool by the likes of Anderson, Suella Braverman and others.
In this way, the 'most diverse Cabinet in history’ does show how far Britain has come: having an Asian Prime Minister who refuses to call out racism but instead uses the example of his own personal success as an ethnic minority to suggest that we should be focused on these ‘bigger wins’ and not the ‘smaller losses’ exemplified by Anderson’s “unacceptable” comments.
But Sunak's experience as an ethnic minority is not representative of any experience but his own. The richest person to ever be Prime Minister, how many people in the country in general can relate to him? And how many other ethnic minorities – who are not a homogenous group – see their experience mirrored in his success?
Using its high-ranking politicians of colour as a shield against legitimate scrutiny of its record on racism, and how seriously it takes the issue, has become a strategy of choice for the Conservatives in recent years.
The logic seems to be that if Sunak, Braverman, James Cleverly, Priti Patel and others can pull themselves up their bootstraps and reach high office, all other ethnic minorities should be able to too, regardless of what we know or don’t know of their life circumstances. And if they don’t, that’s a personal failing – not evidence of any structural challenges they face.
Boris Johnson – who has written of “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles” and Muslim women looking like “bank robbers” and “letterboxes” – knew exactly how to deploy the diversity of his Cabinet to deflect from questions about Conservative racism as Prime Minister.
When asked about new allegations of Islamophobia in his party by Tory MP Nusrat Ghani in 2021, he turned and pointed to his frontbench, where Priti Patel and others sat. “She talks about racism and Islamophobia,” Johnson said. “But look at this Government… look at the modern Conservative Party. We are the party of hope and opportunity for people across this country, irrespective of race or religion.”
Patel also referred to her own personal experience and success as an ethnic minority to answer questions about racism and the issues faced by other ethnic minorities.
“The fact you are sitting here speaking to me, a woman from an Asian minority background, shows we have such great opportunities,” she told the Daily Mail in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. “If this was a racist country, I would not be sitting where I am.”
Many have found the hard-right views of politicians such as Patel perplexing, given their ethnic minority backgrounds. Exploring the complexities of this in these pages previously, I have argued that they are right to not want to be ‘boxed in’ by their identities: that just because they are ethnic minorities doesn’t mean they should be 'more liberal’ on issues such as immigration.
But their motives for advancing such a hardline worldview also matter. The evidence base for the controversial Rwanda scheme, for instance, pioneered by Patel and ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, is not readily available and it is not clear why the Conservatives are making this policy a priority – beyond any culture war votes it hopes to win with it. When Patel’s successor at the Home Office, Suella Braverman, said it was her “dream” to see a deportation flight take off to Rwanda, it is legitimate to ask what is motivating these politicians.
And to question why they use their own individual experiences to dismiss the issues faced by groups of people of colour, who have very different lives and do not enjoy the same privileges.
By offering himself up as “living proof” of this country’s record on race, the Prime Minister exposed how he is happy to weaponise race when it suits, just like Lee Anderson.
In his refusal to call out Islamophobia, or acknowledge that his success is no answer to racism, Sunak laid bare the very reason why we need to keep talking about racism, the complexity of how it is used politically, and the reality that minority groups have very different experiences.
Fundamentally, it clarifies that representation and diversity is about a lot more than having people of colour in positions of power. At its best, it should be about rising above narrow political and personal interests and attempting to at least understand the lives of those with different experiences, regardless of whether they voted for you. Rishi Sunak’s Government is not interested in this.
His time as Prime Minister will have been shameful for its normalisation of a political culture in which the use of race as a tool of division was felt acceptable to allow.
‘Nothing Will Change for Muslims Unless there is a Reckoning with Britain’s Normalised Islamophobia’
Violence in the Middle East is often coupled with the increased use of the language of terror that is routinely associated with Muslims.
Palestinians are ‘extremist’ and ‘terrorists’. British Muslims are ‘extremist’, ‘terrorist’ and ‘misogynist’ who are now apparently “in charge of Britain”. The language of one reaffirms the other and consequently harm towards Muslims – whether Palestinian or British – is legitimised.
The increase in hostilities towards British Muslims as a plausible genocide is being enacted in Gaza is not coincidental; and it does not just arise from simple ignorance. It is embedded top-down by the very instruments that govern this country.
British Muslim communities live in an environment in which Islamophobia is omnipresent – both directly and structurally.
Despite only comprising 6.5% of the total population, Home Office data on hate crime shows that Muslims were the target of 44% of all religious hate crimes in 2022-2023. Islamophobia is also pervasive structurally, in the Labour market, in health and across society. This is the constant, the normal for British Muslims.
Throw in an eruption of violence in the Middle East, and the inflammatory language that accompanies it, and the risks to British Muslims are magnified.
It is therefore no surprise that in this context, the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU) released shocking data recently revealing the sharp spike in Islamophobic incidents.
When directly compared to the preceding five-month average, incidents in October 2023 rose by 365%; by 325% in November; by 206% in December; and by 206% again in January 2024.
The first half of February is already showing a 301% increase in comparison to the previous five-month average.
These are shocking figures despite Muslim communities tending to be reluctant to report such incidents. Depressingly, the true figures may be much worse.
The incidents vary from silencing and censorship to verbal and physical harm.
Take Uzma, a successful executive with an impressive CV citing EY, PwC and Microsoft as past employers. She was banned from LinkedIn for what she believes to be her pro-Palestinian activism. She had a following of 80,000 supporters and more than five million impressions for her content. Uzma took the opportunity to use her platform to talk about the events in Israel and Gaza. Exercising her freedom of speech has cost her access to her livelihood and with little to no support from the platform.
Then there is the year 13 student who was pulled from his classes and interviewed by two teachers because he wore a Palestine badge. Was he Muslim? Did he go to mosque? Did he have a British passport? These were questions he was subjected to by adults that he should have been able to trust. All of them centralised his identity as a Muslim. And all served to spotlight his identity as a problem. This is not the isolated actions of two teachers, it is the result of legislation made by this state which embeds and legitimises the marginalisation of Muslims – even if they are children.
There is also the direct Islamophobia experienced by Muslims on a daily basis; individuals being harassed as they walk down the street or use public transport. One such case documented by the IRU involved a visibly Muslim person being spat at on a train then being goaded for not responding, which resulted in them being subjected to further racial slurs. Muslims engaged in the most mundane activities are deemed offensive by their very existence.
These are just three examples of many incidents that impact Muslims in all walks of life and in all settings. This cannot be a surprise given the normalisation, indeed the rewarding of Islamophobia within our political discourse.
Contrary to the easily identifiable Islamophobia of the right, Islamophobia transcends the political spectrum. You can be elevated to the House of Lords after running an Islamophobic campaign in the case of Lord Zac Goldsmith. You can hold positions in the highest office of the land in the case of Boris Johson. You can use it as a ‘get out of jail free card’ if you are the Speaker of the House who has thwarted the conventions of Parliament.
The returns on Islamophobia are undoubtedly attractive unless you happen to be a Muslim.
In that case, even holding positions of power does not immunise you from its presence as the experiences of Humza Yousaf, Zara Sultana, Apsana Begum or Sadiq Khan show.
When Islamophobia permeates societal structures and is propagated proudly in our political discourse, we cannot expect the harms that it inflicts on British Muslims to cease. The symptoms may present on our streets, but the disease has taken hold of those at the top.
Without a reckoning with the normalised Islamophobia in our political discourse, organisations like the Islamophobia Response Unit will never be out of work and British Muslims will never truly be safe.
People in North of England ‘Live Shorter, Sicker, Poorer Lives Simply Because of Where They Were Born’
People living in the north of England will take nearly a lifetime to reach the same healthy life expectancy as those living now in the prosperous south-east, a damning report reveals today.
The IPPR North think tank has found that it will take 55 years, until 2080, for those living in the north-east of England to have the same healthy life expectancy now enjoyed in London and the south-east of England.
It calls for a radical change in funding for local government and a decade of renewal to change this trajectory, warning "only bold and concerted action will change the course of England’s regional divides”.
The report shows the Government’s current 'levelling up’ programme is inadequate because it is undermined by the scale of local government cuts, and that regional wealth inequality will continue to grow.
IPPR North calls for a reform of capital gains tax to fund investment in the regions, as well as action to stave off political cynicism, investment to halt the collapse of local authority finances, and renewed urgency in the creation of good jobs as part of a renewed regional agenda.
The report also provides some startling facts showing that the level of inequality in the UK – citing examples which Byline Times also analysed in its March 2024 print edition – of the differences between wealth and health in Blackpool and the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
The report cites that in Blackpool – which has the lowest male life expectancy in England – a man has the same healthy life expectancy as in Turkey, a far poorer country than the UK.
While “one neighbourhood of 6,400 people in Kensington had as much in capital gains as Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle combined while Kensington's overall share of UK capital gains was greater than all of Wales”.
The situation is likely to get worse, by 2030, before it can get any better – posing a huge challenge for a potential incoming Labour government.
Life expectancy is expected to drop further in the north-east, East Midlands and the east of England while continuing to rise in London and the south-east by 2028 to 2030.
Spending by local government has fallen drastically since 2009 to 2010 – especially in urban areas. Taking all locally controlled spending power together, the average local government district area has seen a fall of £1,307 per head of population in real terms. Between now and 2030 it is expected to fall further.
Wealth inequality is on course to grow, with a gap reaching £228,800 per head between the south-east and the north by the end of the decade, on current trends.
Opportunities for good jobs also divide the north and London. By 2030, London will have a 66% employment rate compared to just under 56% for the north-east, the report states.
IPPR North research fellow and the report's author, Marcus Johns, said: “No one should be condemned to live a shorter, sicker, less fulfilling, or poorer life simply because of where they were born.
"Yet, that is what our regional inequalities offer today as gaps in healthy life expectancy and wealth endure over the generations, demanding urgent action if we are to change course.
“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion we are headed in the wrong direction on inequality in health, wealth, power, and opportunity while local government finances languish in chaos.”