Lack of preparedness for Covid-19

Much of the UK breathed a sigh of relief when Rishi Sunak claimed payouts for business and that employees would be given 80% of their wage whilst on furlough. However, despite being the Chancellor of the party “for business”, they offered not much shy of a middle finger to the self-employed.

The problems are myriad and systemic and, despite Boris Johnson standing outside No.10 and clapping for the NHS, have been created by the very government now trying its best to make a show of appreciation to the public services and other key workers.

According to the latest Private Eye (1520), the UK came 2nd in the Global Health Security Index which ranked countries according to their ‘”capability to prevent and mitigate epidemics and pandemics.”‘ So what went wrong? Why is it that a country that came 2nd in such an index had such a sluggish response to the Covid-19 emergency?

For the most part, it was Boris Johnson attempting to keep the country open for business. Secondly, the NHS was ill-equipped to deal with such issues due to outsourcing. This was the process by which different sections of the NHS’s prime functions were disbanded between private companies. Thirdly, and this is still under debate, the government’s stance against the European Union may have stood in the way.

Communications regarding the government stance have also been slow in coming largely due to the fact that the Central Office for Information (the office responsible for communicating to the country at times of war and emergency, was slashed and eventually dissolved completely in 2011 as a result of austerity measures. It was an easy choice because it was seen as an invention and tool of the “nanny state”.

Instead, communications come through third party agencies and were therefore slow to be put together. Boris Johnson has also had to rely on the BBC coverage of daily briefings, that very same organisation that he is trying to break up and throw to the wolves.

As climate change alters our landscape, we are expected to suffer at the hands of new and old diseases. Malaria, new strains of Coronavirus, you name it. That raises the question of just what are we going to do the next time around if another pandemic were to happen?

Hopefully, we won’t have Boris Johnson or his supporting cabinet who seem to think that lying would make for good policy when it comes to talking about PPE, death tolls and testing kits. We should also reverse any privatisation of NHS services and we should look more at publicly-funded emergency systems whether it is a designated communications network or pre-fab buildings ready to be up and running in a few days time. What is for certain – we need to stop focusing on media spin and how politicians look as opposed to what they are actually doing.

The Lie of the “Northern Powerhouse”

The Northern Powerhouse brings to mind the coal burning days of old. Of industry and progression. Of manufacturing and textiles and everything in between. It was a concept developed by the coalition government (2010-2015) to try and boost entrepreneurial endeavours and transform the north into a hub of industrial and innovative excellence.

But was there ever any real determination to make sure that the plan became a reality, and that government would stick to its vision of a brighter and stronger future for the north?

An article released in today’s Guardian claims that “almost half of new jobs in England in the last decade were in London and the south-east, despite only a third of the population living in that region”. In the last decade, 1.8 million jobs were created in London and the south-east whilst only 0.6 million jobs were created in Yorkshire and the north-west.

The north-east has fared worse than most regions with a mere 1% of the total number England’s job increases. The area also has the lowest average disposable income.

The north has been let down by the governing politicians of the last decade and the term rendering the phrase “northern powerhouse” little more than a term to throw about when doing the election rounds. It placates by offering a vision, but the reality is that there is very little substance in it.

It is not only ruling governments which have let down the north. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the party historically known for championing the working people of the northern territories, has often been hailed as more of a “metropolitan socialist”, focusing his energy in the capital.

Is it so surprising then to see the “red wall” of the north being dissolved by suspiciously highly-funded Conservatives?

But will the Tories boost the north as Boris Johnson seeks to “level up” the country, or will they fall short like the governments before them? The closure of multiple automotive manufacturing plants in the face of Brexit and the general downturn of trade expected as a result of leaving the European Union predict a slowing of the economy and therefore not much hope for drastic change.

Phrase dissection: “Politics of envy”

Anyone reading the news nowadays would be remiss not to have noticed the surge in populism over the past few years. 2016 especially saw a seismic shift that only few people with their ear to the ground were able to predict.

With the rise of populism came a rise in factionalism and tribalism.

Socialism, democracy, capitalism, republicanism and liberalism pulled out the stops, jumped online, onto the pages of opinion pieces and the pages of newspapers and started swinging.

With competing ideologies came a rise in word-warfare and phrase-flinging.

“Politics of envy“

This is actually a phrase that’s been used for years by high earners, Tories taking swipes at other parties, and people of a certain class who disagree with liberal, democratic or socialist thinking.

If workers and/or unions believe that employees should have better wages, a place in boardrooms or at least a stronger voice in the workplace, they are deemed to be suffering from envy. Even people who think that higher earners should pay more tax are also often thrown under the “politics of envy” banner.

So, anyone on a lower rung of the socio-economic ladder who wishes to get ahead or go further in life.

But the phrase itself needs some dissecting.

Those people who are very well off have a tendency to protect themselves, their companies, and their profit margins. Businesses progress by making sure that they repeatedly turn a profit. This is because they have a duty to give their shareholders a healthy return on their investment.

But companies are only as good as their employees. If a construction company such as Persimmon Homes generates a multimillion pound profit, is it because of the person who started the company or because of the crews who worked through all weathers to build homes?

Work is the biggest killer outside of natural death. Workplace accidents. Slips, trips and falls. Muscular-skeletal injuries. People breathe noxious and hazardous substances. Later in life people will experience back problems, breathing difficulties, cancer through exposure. A vast array of problems from a lifetime of arduous work.

There is a romanticism about “an honest day’s labour.” Earning an “honest living.” There is truth in this. Working laborious jobs and seeing a job completed comes with an immense amount of satisfaction. But that satisfaction of a job well done should come with a wage that mirrors the worker’s toils. But those toils have a heavy toll on the body and, often without financial security through sustainable wages, on the mind.

On the other hand, higher earners have a longer life expectancy and are far less likely to suffer from those physical detriments that are incurred through physical labour.

Is it therefore politics of envy to want more money for your efforts or to want a certain quality of life? Or is it just politics of what is fair? After all, people sacrifice themselves.

“Politics of envy” is a phrase used to dismiss any kind of socialist thought, even that kind of socialist thought to which most people adhere. Like wanting a free NHS. Like wanting the more wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes or perhaps wanting to redistribute wealth.

Is it fair to claim that ordinary people looking for true representation within the political system are suffering from politics of envy when modern day politics is controlled by the dispersion and directing of capital?

So is it really politics of envy? And even if it is, how does that compare against those who partake in the politics of greed?

Post-election Questions

The election was vicious. Not the kind of high-quality sparring that we were once used to when politicians fought tactically over policies and with pride and decency. Instead, we saw tribalism, character assassination and online vitriol the likes of which have left most of us flabbergasted and confused.

Either way, people gave the Conservatives the majority meaning that, unless some kind of large-scale scandal arises, we are leaving the European Union. If Scotland and Northern Ireland will be part of that process is yet to be determined.

Boris Johnson may claim that we should let the “healing begin”, but he and the country now face some very serious questions. Such as:

Will Boris Johnson now open the enquiry into Russian involvement in the 2016 referendum? This is an enquiry into hostile foreign forces meddling in western democracy that Boris Johnson previously quashed.

What is the future for the Labour government? Do they continue to follow so-called “Corbynism” or do they move on to greener pastures in a bid to win back the vote of the working classes?

Will the government move toward green energy or will they continue pursuing fracking?

Will Labour make fresh moves to push Anti-Semitism from their ranks?

Will the government show the full document (and not the redacted version of which three-quarters were blacked out) in which they are shown to push a “pro-shale narrative” on the communities in which they plan to undertake fracking?

Despite leaving the European Union, will government still make sure that they follow the upcoming directive to make sure that transactions to offshore tax-havens are made transparent?

What do the government plan to do about disenfranchisement of the “North” and other areas across the UK?

Is the UK going to become a vassal state for the United States?

How is the NHS really going to be effected?

Now that we should be without bias, are the British public ready to return to fact-checking and verification and to take part in face to face discourse, and hold politicians to account when they lie or do not deliver on their promises.

Will Boris Johnson finally be interviewed by Andrew Neil?

Two things are certain:

1. Journalists have a hell of a lot of work to do to make sure that people are held to account.

2. Government have to make sure that they do everything they can to keep disinformation and misinformation out of the public sphere.

Spectating The Spectator: Trading places

Image source: Pindex

The Spectator’s 10th August, 2019 edition of The Spectator opened up with a piece called Trading places.

The article considers the argument that the UK should look positively on a trade deal with America in place of the trade deal which we already have with the EU.

“The reality is that free trade is almost always on balance a good thing, regardless of which country is it conducted with. That said, there will always be compromises to be made. Vested interests to be tackled. Product standards have to be reviewed…Good trade deals can even destroy native industries – but the overall effect of global trade is to boost the creation of wealth…The important thing is to make the right concessions.”

The U.K already has these concessions with the European Union but with the extra added benefit that, as a democracy, the United Kingdom also has a vote and therefore a voice in the passing of European law. The author of this piece is essentially trying to argue for a position that would make the UK worse off.

“Free trade with the US is opposed by some Remainers for no better reason than because it is advocated by Leavers.”

The author is clearly a hypocrite. What kind of bias does it take to argue that getting away from our closest allies (culturally and by locality) and toward the US would be preferential over the kind of deal we already have? To say that Remainers oppose a deal with America for no other reason than Leavers want it seems exactly what this piece is arguing…only the other way.

‘…the NHS has always outsourced some of its services – which last year accounted for 7 per cent of its budget. There is no reason why US providers should not be allowed to compete for this work on equal terms with British companies.”

That was not the line towed by Leave supporting parties and groups throughout the 2016 referendum and there is also solid reasoning why the US should not be competing on the same terms with British companies: American health care standards are lower than the UK’s. Not only are American health care standards lower, the introduction of more private interests within the NHS goes against public polling which shows that people want private companies kept the at the biggest possible distance from health care system.

The NHS is not the author’s only area of attack. On GM foods:
‘No one can point to ill-effects, and for good reason: GM foods are subject to far more scrutiny than non-GM foods.’

The reason for the GM foods being held to higher scrutiny is because…well…they are genetically modified. A crop created as opposed to one grown is no doubt going to undergo far more scrutiny because it has to pass myriad tests that would decide whether said food was safe for consumption.

The simple truth is that America uses GM crops as it helps mass production which ultimately makes the crop cheaper to make. European food standards are among the highest in the world whilst America have been time and again castigated for packing out their foods with copious amounts of highly addictive and highly fattening corn-syrup.

‘Then there is the practice of washing chicken in chlorine, which has been continuously cited as a reason why we shouldn’t do a trade deal with the US. Even the EU, when it banned chlorine-washed chicken in 1997, came to the conclusion that the practice was perfectly acceptable from a food-standard point of view – but banned it anyway on the flimsy pretext that it might provide farmers with a sense of false security. A better explanation is that it spied the opportunity to snuff out US competition for less efficient European producers.’

The pretext was far from “flimsy”. For instance, the European Commission decided that using chlorine to wash chicken dramatically lowered standards because it allowed farmers to get away with providing poor conditions. As highlighted by Ben Chapman writing for the Independent (Sunday 3 March, 2019) – “Advocates of this approach” (not washing chicken in chlorine) “say that it leads to higher standards of hygiene and animal welfare because farmers must take care at each stage of the process rather than relying on a chemical bath to kill any harmful pathogens after animals are slaughtered.”

The idea that European farms are supposedly “less efficient” is exactly because European standards are higher and do not lower themselves to mass-production quality levels, which results in questionable practices like washing chicken in chlorine. The author also argues that the EU was being protectionist in its endeavours, something which many conservative thinkers is one of the best outcomes of Donald Trump’s America. When the EU tries to put EU farmers and food safety levels first, it is chastised.

What it comes down to is facts. Is chlorine washed chicken okay to eat? Looking back on Ben Chapman’s piece for the Independent, the answer is quite clear.

Are we so loathing of the European Union that we would opt for subservience to the US and lower not only our standards but our global standing?

Abortion in the U.S

Criminalising abortion is evidence of Americans moving against their own Constitution.

Article IV of the Constitution:

‘N(o) religions Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’

1ST Amendment:

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’

The Constitution is America’s guiding document. A revelled piece of history that is constantly used to link the American people with the foundation of their great country. The Constitution is quoted time and again when protecting the people’s right to “bear arms” but there has been a mass looking of the other way when it comes to upholding the 1st Amendment when it comes to religion having a place in matters of state.

Governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, recently signed off on the law and followed it by stating that the bill was “a powerful testament to Alabamian’s deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

As highlighted in the 1st Amendment, whilst the practice of religion is a personal liberty, it has no place as a governing force within the United States and yet this is being ignored. Donald Trump tweeted a response to the motion in Alabama to criminalise abortion by claiming it as a victory for “pro-life” groups. He also tweeted against Doug Jones in Alabama by using the argument that Jones was Pro-Abortion as a smear tactic.

86% of Alabamians identify as Christians.

Why are proud Americans going against the decisions as outlined by their very constitution? Might it have something to do with the Pledge of Allegiance?

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which is stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The often used phrase; “one Nation under God” was not part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

The State is flexible and, though sometimes wavering (nothing is perfect), it is the closest thing that we have to a true representation of the people. The State considers many factors such as protecting the rights of victims of rape and incest and the impact on children born into unsuitable and perhaps unloving environments. It also takes into consideration the stages of foetal development and the safe (and unsafe) periods of termination.

The economic benefits cannot be overlooked either.

The abortion law is going to hit low-income families the hardest. This is because a lack of funds meaning that they cannot afford to go across state lines to undergo the procedure elsewhere, unaffordable contraceptive methods and because people in low income areas are more likely to be subject to attacks such as rape.

Raising a child when finances are tight will also be extremely tricky which could result in myriad problems including depression in parents and children, resentment or malnourishment. School lives could be dramatically affected and quality of life for parents, children or families in general could diminish greatly.

The welfare system would then have to intervene, at great cost. Social care would soar as children face difficult upbringings and inhospitable living conditions. Parents, especially mothers, would have to be given extensive counselling to help come to terms with rape and its repercussions or to simply help manage a stressful life brought around by an overabundance of children.

Hospitals would have to increase staff numbers in order to be able to manage anything from kids coming in with scraped knees to vaccinations and that is before we even consider what physical issues children born through incest might have. And then there is of course the problem that women will lose any anonymity that abortion could have provided. Now, with abortion illegal, women will have to continue within their communities with their children as any evidence of past trauma.

Pro-life groups are overwhelmingly religious and use religious doctrine to dictate their actions in choosing to fight abortion, or end it altogether. When religious beliefs start to infringe upon the liberties of others, it is no longer the practice of religious freedom but the imposition of one’s own belief on others. It becomes what the late Christopher Hitchens called; “theocratic bullying.”

As of the date of release, the following states recognise abortion as illegal (in varying degrees):

Utah

Montana

Alabama

Kentucky

Missouri

Ohio

Arkansaw

Arkansas

Georgia

Indiana

Mississippi

Louisiana

North Dakota

Boris Johnson, the next PM?

Theresa May has been a stalwart lynchpin keeping certain dangers at bay. She has managed to perform a variety of duties in the national interest; slowing down the progress of the European Research Group (ERG) and keeping Boris Johnson out of office.

Since the moment she laid down her Chequers Deal, the people understood that there was no deal that could be made which would appeal to both Leavers and Remainers. Despite this she has slugged on, her ideas appealing to no majority.
Because of her inability to lead the people through Brexit, Theresa May has been forced to stand down. When she does, Boris Johnson is the most likely to succeed the position of Prime Minister.

Since a recent scandal emerged regarding Boris Johnson’s adultery, the former mayor of London has blended into the background, no doubt letting the sting of said scandal blow over before he decides to run for the top job. With a new haircut and a new posture (those sad old tactics still used by politicians) Boris Johnson kick-started his new Back Boris campaign this Monday amidst the turmoil of another scandal. This one regarding his spreading of disinformation during the referendum to leave the European Union.

The court order was raised by Marcus Ball who took to crowd-funding to get the case put through legal proceedings. Boris Johnson’s lawyer has argued that the summons was “unlawful” and wants the case to be suspended for a judicial review. One might guess that it will be once again for review once Boris Johnson is Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson sees himself as the next Winston Churchill. A great leader in waiting who will steer the U.K to greatness. Whilst this might appeal to many people who believe that the U.K will become a vast superpower after separating from the European Union, we must not forget that Boris is still a career politician whose primary goal is to become Prime Minister and be remembered for greatness.

Before the referendum of 2016 started, Boris Johnson wrote two papers. One paper championed the benefits of being inside the European Union whilst the other championed leaving the European Union. On the eve of the campaign, Boris Johnson made the decision to publish the latter paper in a bid to appeal to the more nationalist leaning voters. He pushed for Brexit thinking that the leave side would not win, but he would come out the other side and say that he fought for the people. A ragged fighter for a lost cause.

Boris Johnson’s decision to support Leave was not one that would benefit the country but, as a career politician, would instead benefit himself and his standing in the country’s hearts and minds.

Speaking to Robert Peston, Johnny Mercer said that Boris Johnson “is one of the most self-serving politicians our country has ever seen” and that he “panders to prejudice knowing it wins votes.”

When the vote came through and the U.K found out that we would be leaving the European Union, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were filmed on stage. Neither were celebrating.

Boris Johnson does not want Brexit, but he does want to be seen as a staunch leader. He wants to be seen as a man standing up for the so-called “will of the people.” Theresa May, for her ills, made sure that Boris Johnson was put in a position where he could live up to his words and forge new relationships throughout the world by making him Foreign Secretary.
Boris Johnson was met warmly by many who regarded him as the fuzzy, personable man who they had seen on television. However, that was the only thing that they got. Boris had a habit of turning up, shaking hands, posing for selfies and making jokes.

There was a widespread disappointment by officials within the countries that Boris visited who commented that Boris had provided nothing of substance.
This was feeble attempt of international relations by the man who had championed Brexit. But, keeping in mind, what could Britain offer the rest of the world that it could not have offered while being part of the E.U? The answer; far less. The world wanted to know that they could get access to us and, through us, access to Europe.

Boris Johnson’s one and only role was to make the best out of Brexit by becoming a face of the nation and telling the rest of the world that all was well and thriving and that Britain was still open for business. James Lansdale commented that “it is a task that few historians will conclude Mr Johnson achieved.”

This profile does not match that of a Brexiteer. And if it does, then he is startlingly incompetent. Either way, the man made a mockery of the U.K when he visited other countries and could offer nothing of substance. What was he going to tell them anyway? He could not secure any trade deals or organise anything substantial whilst the process of unfolding ourselves from the E.U was going on.

Author of politics.co.uk, Ian Dunt, wrote a piece today titled “This prime minister was destroyed by Brexit. And the next one will be too.” In this stark and worryingly bleak piece, Ian Dunt highlights the only two reasonable options which must be considered by the next prime minister in order to sort out the Brexit mess:
“Either cancel Brexit, which they will not do, or be honest with the people what it entails, which they will not do either.”

Boris Johnson will not be the person to do this (neither will anyone else) but the primary concern is that Boris is self-serving and lacking any real substance. When he doed show substance or make concrete decisions, his choices are somewhat questionable. For instance; the Garden Bridge, purchasing water cannons in response to the London riots, multiple counts of sexual promiscuity, claiming Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was teaching journalism in Iran instead of being on holiday which would result in spending more time in an Iranian prison instead of coming back to the U.K, calling black people “piccaninnies”, backing Brexit and using a thirty year-old argument about bananas – which was false – tojustify it. The list is extensive.

Donald Trump arrives in the U.K in the midst of controversy

Donald Trump was in U.K airspace when he tweeted about Mayor of London Sadiq Khan:

Before President Trump landed, LBC’s Rachael Venables spoke to Jeremy Hunt (who was ready at Stansted to greet the president) regarding the tweets. Jeremy Hunt brushed off the behaviour with standard there-or-thereabouts remarks in a bid for democracy. Hunt sided with Trump stating that: “He” (Trump) “has been shown great discourtesy.”

Donald Trump has previously endorsed Boris Johnson for Prime Minister and Nigel Farage to lead Brexit and has recently offered platitudes on the Queens grand-daughter in-law, Meghan Merkel. Despite this, Trump is due to meet Prime Minister Theresa May and have a reception at Buckingham Palace.

MORE Brexit Party uncertainty

Illuminations from the The Sarawak Report

The Brexit Party has come under more scrutiny after it was found that donations could be made to the party from anywhere in the world, without having to provide any “prior information of their identity, nationality or address to provide basic safeguards against money laundering, before directing them to the PayPal site.”

Not all funding comes through PayPal however. It has emerged that Nigel Farage has asked for any and all support from wealthy donors who have strong links to Donald Trump but, more worryingly, Vladimir Putin.

As pointed out in the last blog post regarding Brexit Party funding, the ties to far-right populist groups and Russia seem to be building.

The Brexit Party claims to be patriotic and democratic and yet the actions undertaken in its name speak louder than Nigel Farage’s bombast. Those that voted to leave the European Union did so because they “believe in Britain.” Does believing in Britain come at the expense that Britain should become subject to international meddling, the very thing that Brexit was supposed to eliminate in the first place?

The Brexit Party is participating in securing funding from far-right and populist groups at the same time as eliminating the transparency that should accompany any democratic undertaking by refusing to provide information on donation from overseas. So far the only answer that has been given is that the “establishment” are out to get the Brexit Party. A smear tactic on an ambiguous idea that allows die-hard followers to ignore any negative coverage of Brexit or the Brexit Party.

It is worth noting here that ChangeUK (formerly The Independent Group, may be known by another name tomorrow) is also somewhat silent on their financial backers.

What is clear is that Nigel Farage has utilised PayPal’s exchange functions to muddle and confuse the source of donations. As highlighted in the Sarawak Report (also linked above): “There is nothing to stop the same person donating repeatedly from the same account.” But that is only taking into consideration humans. For instance; bots can and have been used by Russia and foreign parties with invested interests in the U.K democratic process and the Sarawak Report has come to the conclusion that bots could be used to make multiple payments.

Showing that donations can be made from across the world in all currencies and without any declaration of British citizenship

Nigel Farage’s last campaigning escapade, Leave EU, received illegal donations from Arron Banks (who then went on to fund Nigel Farage’s meetings with America’s business and political elites, security and chauffer costs and accommodation in Chelsea – all of which has not been declared because it is “personal” according to Mr Farage.)

The Brexit Party now seems to be pulling the same kind of stunt by using an online money transference and banking system.

PayPal can convert currencies into sterling. The Brexit Party are using the natural functions of money exchanging by PayPal to allow the free flow of money into the party, and declaring it as a donation made in sterling. This is misleading because, under electoral law, the donation is still coming from abroad and from people who do not have U.K citizenship. Much like Nigel Farage’s Brexit project; Leave EU, the Brexit Party could very well be breaking campaigning law.

Another startling realisation that was made by the Sarawak Report is that the Brexit Party payments do not go to a politically recognised party, but to Brexit Party Limited. The Brexit Party, much like Gordon Brown stated (please see last blog) is a private company.

Shot of payment to Brexit Party Ltd

The primary shareholder is Nigel Farage.