Wednesday, 13 December 2017

Listen up Theresa, you don't actually need a dick to be a misogynist


Theresa May has resorted to a crude display of dick-counting in order to score cheap political points against Labour. She was trying to make the absurd case that because she's a woman and Jeremy Corbyn is a man, the Tories are somehow more female-friendly than Labour.

The glaring problem for Theresa May and her Tory colleagues is that they have repeatedly voted in favour of imposing ruinous austerity dogma on the British economy. Not only does Tory austerity dogma (or deliberate under-investment as it could also be described) provably cause vast amounts of social and economic damage in general, but 86% of the burden of it has been loaded onto the shoulders of women from poor and ordinary women.

The reality is that Theresa May and her Tory mates are the misogynists who believe in economically punishing millions of women from poor and ordinary backgrounds for the reckless gambling of the wealthy (and mainly male) bankers who trashed the global economy and caused the soaring UK budget deficit in the first place.

On the other hand Labour and Jeremy Corbyn want to scrap the Tories' ruinous and discriminatory austerity agenda, and implement numerous policies that would benefit women across the UK too. For example the Labour policy of a £10 minimum wage would benefit millions of women, because the vast majority of workers earning poverty pay are female.

So while Theresa May and her elitist Tory chums focus on cock-counting to score cheap political points as they simultaneously discriminate against women from the 'lower orders', Jeremy Corbyn has come up with policies to actually help ordinary women who aren't lucky enough to earn £142,500 a year like Theresa May does. The kind of women who aren't wealthy enough to totally insulate themselves from the devastating consequences of Tory austerity fanaticism that are suffered every day by women outside the wealthy establishment class.

The simple truth of the matter is that you don't actually have to have a dick to be an outrageous misogynist, and possession of a penis doesn't disbar you from fighting for women's rights either.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

The Tories and DUP are plotting to use Brexit as an excuse to tamper with democracy in Scotland and Wales.


Remember when the Brexit campaigners told us all that voting Leave would give the Tory party (and their uber-nationalist DUP mates) the pability to amend the powers of the Scottish parliament and the Welsh Assembly with no democratic oversight of their actions whatever?

No. Me neither.

Well on the evening of December 12th 2017 the Tories and their DUP backers/puppet-masters joined forces to defeat Amendment 158 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill by 315 votes to 291.

Amendment 158 sought to prevent the Westminster government from misusing the powers they were awarding themselves to amend EU derived laws in order to undermine the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

This safeguard is vitally important because there are plenty in the Tory and DUP ranks who would dearly love to restrict the power of the devolved parliaments, if not scrap them altogether. 

All 13 of the Tory MPs representing Scottish seats voted with the government to let them keep the power to alter or revoke devolved powers from their own national parliament without any parliamentary scrutiny of what they are actually up to!

Unless you follow SNP or Plaid Cymru politicians on Twitter you will have heard very little about this vote because the mainstream media have decided to completely ignore it.

Ignoring such a significant constitutional matter is bizarre enough in its own right, but this media silence is quite simply extraordinary given that this contentious vote occurred on the very same day that the entire corporate mainstream media erupted in an explosion of anti-Facebook fury over weeks old comments from a disgruntled former Facebook employee!

The corporate media will go into a frenzy of churnalism over ex-employee attacks former employer comments from weeks ago, but not one of them will even bother to explain the details of the Brexit legislation the Tories are currently ramming through parliament with the support of their fanatical DUP backers/puppet-masters?


If we look back to the whole debacle over English Votes for English Laws, the hypocrisy of the Tory party is truly revealed. They voted to ban Scottish Westminster MPs from voting on anything they define as an "English law", but when it comes to Brexit, they've voted to allow English government ministers to use Brexit as an excuse to redefine or even scrap the powers of the Scottish parliament!

Of course a significant percentage of Brexit voters were the kind of hard-right tabloid-addled little Englanders who actually take Nigel Farage's ravings seriously, but a hefty percentage never were.

However it should be obvious to all by now that Brexit is being dictated by the hard-right fringe of the Tory party, and you couldn't really get a more callous and opportunistic bunch than that lot. If they see an opportunity to use Brexit as an excuse to reduce the political power of Scottish and Welsh voters then of course they're going to try to take it.

Even if Brexit wasn't solely an exercise in anti-democratic Little Englanderism before the referendum result came in, this vote to scrap Amendment 158 shows that it certainly is now.

The Tories are already determined to use Brexit as an excuse to rewrite thousands of UK laws with no democratic scrutiny whatever, and their vote against Amendment 158 is proof that they're keen on rewriting the laws that established and defined the devolved Scottish and Welsh parliaments, and doing that without any democratic scrutiny too.

The direction of travel is absolutely obvious, and anyone (regardless of their views on the EU) who continues to support the profoundly anti-democratic and increasingly British-nationalist approach the Tories are taking to Brexit surely forfeits their right to consider themselves a supporter of democracy.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Tuesday, 12 December 2017

The Daily Mail is accusing others of divisiveness!


The Daily Mail is a hateful and divisive hard-right propaganda rag that deliberately stokes divisions in society in order to deflect criticism away from the mega-rich establishment class (like their tax-dodging billionaire owner Jonathan Harmsworth, and the Tory political establishment they promote so relentlessly).

So it's particularly ironic to see the Daily Mail run a front page splash about how Facebook is supposedly "ripping society apart".

Anyone with a few brain cells to rub together knows that the main purpose of the Daily Mail is to rip society apart as much as possible in order to prevent solidarity forming between the lower orders, because they know as well as we do that if the British people actually stood together for once and demanded change, the tiny self-serving cabal of establishment elitists would be powerless to stop us because we massively outnumber them.

So they divide and divide and divide. They continually stoke hatred of immigrants, Muslims, single mothers, the unemployed, 
refugees, students, judges, public sector workers, Millenials, academics, and anyone who expresses even remotely left-wing or liberal ideas.

The central purpose of the Daily Mail is to continually divide society, yet here they are damning Facebook for "ripping society apart" on their front page on the very same day that Rupert Murdoch's biggest propaganda rag launched their own front page attack on Twitter.

Once we see this front page Daily Mail attack on Facebook as part of a concerted mainstream media campaign against social media, we get to the main point of it.

The Daily Mail hate Facebook and other forms of social media because they give a voice to other people. Social media gives a voice to people like me to point out what a vile extreme-right propaganda rag the Daily Mail is; their history of promoting fascism and praising Adolf Hitler; their support for modern day fascists like Norbert Hoffer in Austria, their contempt for democracy and the rule of law; their call for Jeremy Corbyn to be killed just weeks after Jo Cox was murdered in the street, the fact they've been banned from Wikipedia as an unreliable source; the racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes they continually promote; and the way they regularly ridicule the credulity of their own damned readers.

Despite being one of the most hateful and divisive publications in Britain, there are many at the Daily Mail who actually consider themselves to be the rightful gatekeepers of public discourse. So it fills them with impotent rage that social media is allowing other people to express dissenting opinions, and undermine the enormous power and influence of the right-wing billionaire press barons they work for.

Of course Facebook and Twitter are not perfect. Anyone who has ever ventured into the extreme-right Britain First hate chamber will know the kind of terrifying depravity that these companies host on their sites, yet the extreme-right, immigrant-hating, anti-Muslim, ultra-nationalist hate fest that is Britain First is simply a purer distillation of the hatred that Daily Mail hacks have spent decades deliberately stoking.

The Daily Mail can't really be angry at the existence of hatefests like Britain First, other than for the fact that they're stealing the target audience of hate-filled, extreme-right, white supremacist halfwits they've spent decades cultivating for themselves.

This furious front page splash is proof that Facebook and other social media sites are an absolute disaster for the Daily Mail.

Not only does social media provide a platform to decent people to stand up and offer alternatives to the divisive, hard-right, pro-establishment propaganda that the Daily Mail and the rest of the right-wing press churn out on an industrial scale, social media also provides a platform for extreme-right fanatics like the Britain First mob to steal and further-radicalise the Daily Mail's own core audience of angry hate-filled right-wingers.

So social media is undermining the power of the Daily Mail from both ends.


The direction of travel is obvious now. The Internet is breaking down the walled ideological gardens of the past. Only the older generations and the technology averse still turn to a single source like the Daily Mail for their news. Ever more people are obtaining their news from myriad different sources via our social media feeds, which may include the occasional Daily Mail article, but alongside all sorts of other stuff, including independent media pages like this one.

The Daily Mail hacks are like the Luddites who wanted to reverse the industrial revolution by smashing milling equipment. They're furiously decrying social media because they desperately want the social media cake to be unbaked and returned to its neatly segregated ingredients like it was before.

This anti-Facebook headline is another piece of evidence that the right-wing propaganda barons and their mercenary hacks are losing their vice-like influence over British political discourse, and the mix of terror and impotent fury this erosion of influence is provoking in them is an absolute joy to behold.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Monday, 11 December 2017

Why do so many people who benefited from social mobility now want the ladder kicked down?


As a result of the changes introduced by Clement Attlee's post-war Labour government the 1960s and '70s saw the greatest levels of social mobility the United Kingdom has ever seen.

There was full employment so that pretty much anyone with the desire to work could find a job with at least half decent pay. There were plenty of houses, and even if you couldn't quite afford a house of your own there was an abundant supply of social housing too. If you were academically smart, then university education was free, and it even came with maintenance grants to cover your living costs. If you lost your job or fell ill then the welfare state provided half-decent social security payments to stave off absolute destitution. The legal aid system ensured that the poor and ordinary could have access to decent legal representation so as to tip the scales of justice ever-so-slightly less in favour of the super-rich.


Of course this period was no utopia, and plenty of people still endured poor pay, dangerous working conditions, and discriminatory practices (especially when it came to stuff like sex, race, class and sexual orientation), but since 1979 many of the things that allowed these high levels of social mobility to happen have been deliberately attacked and undermined by the Westminster political class.




  • The current low unemployment figures that right-wingers love to brag about so much are a blatant fix which counts anyone who does just 1 hour a week in a zero hours contract job as employed. Additionally it counts anyone who has been thrown off benefits by zealous job centre staff trying to comply with the sanctions league tables as not being unemployed. Additionally people on unpaid workfare schemes are classed as being employed!


  • Access to legal aid has been trashed so badly that hundreds of thousands of people are being left with no choice but to represent themselves in court, which not only shatters their chances of success, but also wastes vast amounts of time because they simply don't understand the legal processes.
It's completely understandable that the privileged classes and their pals in the Westminster establishment club have worked so hard and for so long to reduce social mobility. After all the beneficiaries of social mobility become rivals to the children of the upper classes. The less social mobility there is, the more unearned opportunities that get handed on a plate to the children of the establishment class.

It's clearly a huge advantage to the children of the establishment class that their peers are lumbered with a lifetime 9% aspiration tax on their disposable income for their university education, while they avoid it because their parents could pay the fees upfront. 


It's beyond obvious that an unaccountable political elite would increasingly selfishly rig society to benefit their own class if they found that they suffered no adverse electoral consequences for doing it (as the New Labour mob found when they first introduced aspiration tax for university students from poor and ordinary backgrounds).

The establishment elitists who rig society to benefit their own class are undeniably the bad guys, but the truly despicable people are those who actually reaped the benefits of social mobility in the 1960s and '70s, who now desperately want to slam the door shut on the younger generations now.

The people who came from poor and ordinary backgrounds and enjoyed the benefits of stuff like social housing and/or affordable house prices, full employment and decent wages, a decent social safety net, legal aid, and free university education, but who now vote in favour of denying these same opportunities to younger generations.

Perhaps some of these people genuinely believe that they achieved it all themselves, and the decent wages, affordable housing, social safety net, legal protections, and access to free university education had nothing to do with it. That's called the self-attribution fallacy, and huge numbers of wealthy people love to imagine that they did it all by themselves.

On the other hand there are plenty who know perfectly well that they benefited from social mobility, but who want to slam the door shut on younger generations for purely self-interested reasons. For example people who benefited from affordable housing in the past know that building more social and affordable housing now would slow down the inflating value of their property portfolios, and reduce the profits from their buy-to-let slumlord empires.


Of course it was hard to avoid voting in favour of attacks on social mobility when Tony Blair and his ilk were running the Labour Party. But now that Labour has a leader who is determined to reverse the trend and begin promoting social mobility again through policies like free education, house building, welfare reform, decent wages, regulation of the private rental market, and a crackdown on exploitative employment practices, there's really no excuse for voting for more Tory class war inspired attacks on social mobility unless you actively oppose social mobility.

The wealthy and privileged establishment club who have spent the best part of four decades rigging British society in favour of themselves and their own are vile self-serving elitists, but the people who actually benefited from social mobility who vote in favour of the Tory war against social mobility are the truly despicable ones.

They're the kind of people who climb the ladder out of the flooding basement, then deliberately kick it down and let others from their own class drown, rather than risk sharing the benefits of not drowning with others.

Even those who have deluded themselves that social mobility is irrelevant and that they achieved everything in life themselves are guilty of class treachery. 


Perhaps they're too deluded to realise that voting in favour of the Tory war against social mobility is an utterly malicious thing to do, but since when was stupidity a defence?

Does the criminal get to avoid jail because he claims to be too stupid to have realised that robbing the Post Office was a crime?

Of course not.

So why on earth should Tory voters who came from poor and ordinary backgrounds get to claim that they're too narrow-minded to understand that it's unspeakably malicious for them to kick the ladder down to prevent younger generations benefiting from the social mobility they themselves enjoyed in the past?

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Sunday, 10 December 2017

Toby Young is terrified of losing his place at the Tory trough


After deciding to completely whitewash a British Medical Journal study linking 120,000 excess deaths with Tory austerity dogma just a few weeks ago (because the BMJ are supposedly not a reliable enough source), the BBC decided to give the sneering Tory fanatic Toby Young a platform to spew a load of anti-Labour bile on the Sunday Politics show.

You may remember Toby Young as the hard-right Tory propagandist who led the Tories for Corbyn campaign in 2015 under the spectacularly misguided delusion that a genuinely left-wing Labour leader would destroy the Labour Party and create a permanent Tory hegemony.

Young doesn't seem to have acknowledged his own idiocy in actively promoting Jeremy Corbyn, and neither has he learned the lesson from the 2017 General Election that hyperbolic anti-Labour smears simply don't work anymore.

Young's latest hyperbolic propaganda attack against the Labour left is to compare the grassroots Labour campaign group Momentum with the Britain First hate mob.


Britain First is a disgusting extreme-right BNP splinter group led by a bunch of criminals with multiple convictions for crimes like harassment, criminal damage, and assault, and in June 2016 one of their supporters brutally murdered the MP Jo Cox.

Momentum is a democratic socialist campaign group within the Labour Party that supports Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, and works to promote greater democratic participation.

Britain First have announced all kinds of policies over they years, including extrajudicial lynch mob killings, the introduction of systematic government discrimination in favour of white British people, book-banning, a total ban on abortion regardless of circumstances, the abolition of the right to a fair trial, compulsory Christian indoctrination in schools, the deportation of all refugees, government control of the media, a ban on all Muslims from holding public office, withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO, forced labour schemes, an Orwellian ban on the use of the word "racism", restoration of the death penalty, compulsory national service, an expansion in the sell off of social housing, imitation of Tory austerity dogma, and "repatriation" of British-born people of foreign descent.

Britain First's political tactics involve spreading anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, white supremacist, and anti-intellectual propaganda on social media; providing social media echo chambers for their followers to spread hatred, yearn for fascism, and plot criminal activities; street patrols and mosque invasions; conning donations out of unsuspecting people with honey trap scams like pretending to raise funds for animal welfare issues; turning a murdered British serviceman into a poster boy for an extreme-right ideology his family say he would have abhorred; and ripping off the poppy logo from the Royal British Legion in order to raise funds for their own extremist party.

Momentum support the centre-left policies outlined in the Labour Party manifesto. These include running essential British infrastructure and services (the NHS, Royal Mail, railways, water companies, national grid) as not-for-profit public services; the establishment of a National Investment Bank; treating education as a right that is beneficial to all of society, not a commodity to be sold at the highest possible price; curbs on tax-dodging and excessive boardroom pay; a £10 minimum wage; an end to the systematic abuse of disabled people in the welfare system; and the replacement of ruinous Tory austerity dogma with a sensible investment-based economic strategy.

Aside from supporting the Labour Party manifesto, Momentum also aim to encourage greater political participation and to democratise the Labour Party from within, giving much more power to ordinary Labour members.

So on the one hand you've got a neo-fascist, ultra-nationalist, extreme-right, white supremacist political party with a load of bonkers policies ranging from outright racism and zealotry to keeping the worst elements of Tory fanaticism as they are (austerity dogma, the destruction of social housing, welfare cuts ...), that is run by a bunch of criminals, and supported by a vast online hate mob who openly yearn for fascism and praise acts of extreme-right terrorism.

And on the other hand you've got a group of 23,000 law-abiding citizens from all ages, races and walks of life who promote centre-left economic policies that are commonplace across Europe and the developed world, and work to make the Labour Party more democratic and responsive to the will of its members.

The reason Toby Young wants you to equate this kind of peaceful centre-left democratic socialism with a lawless extreme-right hate mob is that he's one of the big personal beneficiaries of right-wing Tory ideological dogma.

In a spat with the left-wing political commentator Owen Jones over his absurd Momentum/Britain First comparison Young actually patted himself on the back about having set up free schools and bagged a job working as a director of a pseudo-charity called New Schools Network which is designed to siphon cash out of the taxpayer funded education budget in order to stuff it into the pockets of a bunch of "directors" and "advisers" in the form of bloated salaries and advisory fees.

Aside from topslicing cash out of the education budget, Young also earns a pretty penny working as a Tory propagandist for the tax-dodging Barclay Brothers, so he's definitely a man who knows which side his bread is buttered.


Young knows that a democratic socialist government would present a grave risk to parasites like him who gorge themselves on state funds whilst pretending to love capitalism so much.

Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to reverse the incremental privatisation of the NHS, establish a National Education Service, and to take heavily-subsidised national industries out of the hands of exploitative private sector profiteers and run them as not-for-profit public services.

This not-for-profit agenda strikes terror into the hearts of Toby and his ilk who believe that they have a God-given right to use government budgets to enrich themselves and their cronies, and to milk the British people for every penny they're worth through exploitative employment practices, rip-off private sector utilities, and the virtually unregulated private sector rental market.

These people are so used to enriching themselves at everyone else's expense that the prospect of more democracy, not-for-profit public services, and a clamp down on tax-dodging seems even more extreme to them than the wanton street thuggery, abolition of women's reproductive rights, state control of the media, religious indoctrination in schools, extrajudicial lynch-mob killings, white supremacism, and all of the other depraved stuff that Britain First promote.

Toby Young and his ilk are nothing more than frightened piggies at the Tory trough, and they're absolutely terrified that a rejuvenated and democratised Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn might actually hinder their absolute gluttony at the expense of the rest of us.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Asking the fox to do a better job of guarding the chicken coop


The myopia of the political right never ceases to amaze. On the weekend after Theresa May's deal capitulation on the first phase of Brexit negotiations the Spectator published a piece warning that the Tory government must wake up to the dangers of fake news before it's too late.

Of course I have no quarrel with the central premise of the article that fake news is a huge problem. Nobody is denying that Twitter and other social media platforms are awash with automated bots pushing vast tides of deliberate political disinformation into the news feeds and inboxes of millions of people.

The problem of course is that fake news isn't just limited to Russian bots, white supremacists, extreme-right activists, and the like. 


As much as the mainstream media and the political establishment would love to convince you that they're the only true sources of reliable information in an ocean of disinformation, they're often guilty of disseminating fake news to the kind of vast audiences that the owners of Russian Twitter bot farms could only dream of.

Mainstream news sites from across the political spectrum have been caught promoting distortions, exaggerations, misleading narratives, and outright lies. Surely we can all think of plenty of examples of newspapers and broadcasters producing shockingly misleading content for ourselves?


In fact it's been proven that mainstream media hacks have massively amplified the popularity and reach of Russian Twitter bots and other fake news purveyors by lazily embedding their Tweets into their articles instead of engaging in actual journalism.

But aside from the mainstream press doing stuff like brazenly misrepresenting statistics to whip up hate against British Muslims, repeatedly inventing fake terrorist incidents, embedding Russian bot tweets in their articles, and concocting stories out of outright lies they've lazily churnalised off the Guido Fawkes blog, there's a subtler but more sinister form of fakery going on.

Take the British Medical Journal research paper linking 120,000 excess deaths with Tory austerity dogma that the BBC decided not to mention at all. The astounding decision to hide the existence of this damning report from the public revealed that the BBC is more of a PR department for the political establishment than an impartial broadcaster.

Then there's the fact that the BBC continually gives credence to fringe lunatics with their fake balance agenda so that qualified climate scientists are given the same platform and airtime as clueless blowhard climate change denialists like Nigel Lawson.

But the BBC obsession with creating fake balance (even between experts and extremists when it comes to subjects like climate change) suddenly evaporates completely when it comes to economics. At the 2017 General Election the British public were split almost exactly 50-50 between supporting pro- and anti- austerity parties. You wouldn't know that watching BBC political output though, which insists on heavily stacking almost all of its debates and politics shows with pro-austerity politicians and political commentators, as if the idea of economic impartiality is an absurd concept, rather than something that should absolutely be expected from a taxpayer funded public service broadcaster.

Mainstream newspapers and broadcasters are demonstrably guilty of creating and disseminating fake news, and of deliberately manipulating public perceptions. But there's also the problem of politicians creating fake news themselves too.

We've all seen how the "£350 million a week for the NHS" and "only a madman would try to drag the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union" Brexiteer lies have crumbled away to reveal a hard Tory Brexit and a vast 50 billion divorce bill.

We all saw how Donald Trump won the US election promising universal health care to the American people before immediately launching attack after attack on America's very limited socialised health care provisions in order to deny coverage to literally millions of people.

And anyone who uses Twitter will be aware of the Tory party accounts @CCHQ and @Conservatives which both spew a near constant stream of pro-Tory fake news.


On the day before the Spectator article pleading with the Tories to take fake news seriously the @Conservatives account published an extraordinarily misleading Tweet claiming that there is such a thing as British law (there isn't because Scots Law and English Law are two distinct legal systems) and using a picture of a gavel to illustrate it (gavels have never ever been used in Scots or English courts).

On the very same day Tory MPs conducted an absolute barrage of Twitter propaganda trying to recast Theresa May as some kind of master-negotiator for having finally crawled over the first Brexit hurdle a lamentable eight months after triggering Article 50 with no plan for what she wanted to achieve as an actual objective.

And let's not forget that just days before Theresa May's Brexit deal capitulation her Brexit minister David Davis claimed that the Tory government has actually done no Brexit impact assessments whatever, meaning the 58 Brexit impact assessments he'd spent the summer bragging about to parliament, the press, and the public were in fact fake news.

Imagine the myopia of appealing to the Tory party to do something to combat fake news when the writer knows perfectly well that Theresa May's cabinet is stuffed to the gunnels with lying Brexiteers; that the Tory party operates a pair of the most shockingly misleading official British political accounts on Twitter; that BBC political coverage is little more than taxpayer funded PR for the Tory party these days; and that Tory politicians are currently engaged in yet another Orwellian propaganda campaign, this time to convince the British public that the Brexit deal capitulation is a wonderful thing and Theresa May is some kind of exceptional master-negotiator!

It really is like asking the fox to do a better job of guarding the chicken coop.



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Wednesday, 6 December 2017

David Davis has dug himself into a massive hole over his Schrödinger's Brexit impact studies


In March 2017 I wrote a blog post highlighting the fact that the Tories were openly admitting that they had done absolutely no impact assessments into the social and economic effects of a "no deal" cliff edge Brexit before they decided to make the threat of it the absolute centrepiece of their so-called negotiation position with their "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric.

By the summer the Tories and the Brexit minister David Davis had changed their tune completely. Davis took to claiming that there were between 50 and 60 detailed sectoral analyses into the economic impact of Brexit.

When quizzed about whether Theresa May had read these Brexit impact assessments by the Brexit Select Committee, David Davis claimed that they contained "excruciating detail", but that she would have read the executive summaries.

In early November the opposition parties won a vote to force the Tories to hand over the Brexit impact assessments to the Brexit Select Committee so that they could scrutinise the different impacts of the various different Brexit scenarios.

Since then the Tory government have been stalling and stalling on handing over these impact assessments, despite being threatened with contempt of parliament by the speaker John Bercow if they don't.

And then on the morning of December 6th 2017 David Davis decided to tell the Brexit Select Committee that there are actually no Brexit impact assessments on any sector of the UK economy.


This clip is extraordinarily difficult to square with Davis' previous assertions that Theresa May had read the executive summaries of these excruciatingly detailed reports that don't exist.

It makes an interesting though experiment to consider the nature of these Schrödinger's impact assessments which both exist in excruciating detail and also don't exist at all according to David Davis, but the bigger issue here is that the man has clearly exposed himself as a profoundly dishonest charlatan.

He was either lying when he claimed that Theresa May has read the executive summaries of these reports, or he's lying that they don't exist simply because he doesn't want anyone to read them because they project a catastrophic economic meltdown if Brexit goes ahead.

Brexit is the single most complex and risky process the UK has undertaken in decades, and David Davis is now expecting us to believe that the Tories have done no research into the potential consequences whatever. 

He expects us to just accept that they've wasted 18 months since the EU referendum result on a shambolic "let's make it up as we go along" Brexit strategy, without even considering the economic impact of what they're actually doing.

This admission from David Davis should be the final nail in the coffin for the myth of Tory economic competence.

Let's forget the fact that those who propagandised in favour of Brexit should have presented social and economic impact studies before the EU referendum to convince us of their case, and just focus on the fact that even after Brexit they've had 18 months to research the consequences of their actions, and they've done nothing.

How can they ever pretend to be competent guardians of the British economy again when they're now admitting that they've spent 18 months on Brexit without doing a single study into the impact on any area of the UK economy (the financial sector, aviation, the automotive industry, manufacturing, agriculture, retail, the health service, fishing, hospitality, tourism, any of it!)?

Millions of people ignored the fact that the Brexiteers had no plan and no impact studies to justify their case and voted in favour of Brexit regardless, but surely now they must be having second thoughts given the fact that the Tories have openly admitted wasting 18 months, and even triggering Article 50 without even bothering to do any analysis on the possible consequences beforehand.

How can anyone, no matter what their views on EU membership, look at this extraordinarily reckless Tory shambles and not be deeply concerned about it?


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Monday, 4 December 2017

On planet reality the Tories are the radical economic extremists, not Jeremy Corbyn


Every single time you hear someone from the political right trying to make out that Jeremy Corbyn is some kind of hard-left economic extremist (as if the Tories are economic moderates in comparison), you've got to remember that they're trying to convince you that black is white.

In reality Labour's core economic policies under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership (public ownership of the rail industry, water companies, mail service, health service, police services & national grid + a National Investment Bank) are quite normal centre-left policies that are commonplace across the developed world.

Not only are these policies commonplace across the developed world, they're all incredibly popular with the public.

Renationalisation of our core infrastructure and services has overwhelming public support, and the only reason British people are a bit more divided over the excellent idea of a National Investment Bank is that Britain has never had a proper sovereign wealth fund like Norway, so a lot of people are unfamiliar with the idea.

There is a constant right-wing political narrative that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrifying hard-left economic extremist which rarely ever gets challenged by the mainstream media. But the really crazy thing is that while mainstream media hacks continually allow right-wingers to smear Jeremy Corbyn and Labour as economic extremists when they're not, they're simultaneously letting the Tories get away with implementing one crackpot economic policy from the hard-right fringe after another.

Only 3% of the British public agree with the proposition that police services should be privatised, yet that's exactly what the Tories have been up to. In 2012 they ignored expert opinion and public opinion alike and privatised the Police Forensic Science Service. Now that police privatisation policy has come back to haunt us all as one of the privatised forensic science companies has been caught manipulating the results of 10,000 samples from criminal cases. That's thousands of potential miscarriages of justice! Thousands of potential retrials (at the taxpayers' expense of course). Potentially thousands of innocent people fined, or even jailed for crimes they didn't commit. And most worrying of all, these manipulated samples could have allowed rapists, murderers and violent criminals to roam free as innocent people took the rap for their crimes.

Then there's schools. Only 6% of the public believe that schools should be privatised, yet that's exactly what the Tories have been doing since 2010. Over the last seven years they've transferred ownership of literally thousands of state schools to shady unaccountable private sector psuedo-charities that have then used bloated executive salaries in order to siphon millions out of our children's education budgets and into their own pockets. The mainstream media completely let them off the hook for implementing this fanatically right-wing policy. It's incredibly rare to see the mainstream journalists frame the situation as hard-right radicalism gone wrong whenever a privatised academy chain collapses into ruins, but that's exactly what it is because hardly anyone wanted our schools privatised in the first place.

Then there's the NHS. The public is split 84% to 10% in favour of running the NHS as a not-for-profit public service (which is Jeremy Corbyn's position), yet the Tories have been carving it up and giving away the pieces to their private sector mates ever since their disastrous 2012 Health and Social Care Act. The more they cut NHS funding and distribute services to their private sector mates, the worse NHS services are getting (just ask anyone who actually works in the NHS), but the mainstream media barely ever frame the worsening conditions in the NHS as yet another example of hard-right Tory radicalism gone wrong, because they're too busy trying to frame Jeremy Corbyn as the terrifying extremist for actually offering the public what the overwhelming majority of them say they want!

If Jeremy Corbyn was on about nationalising the airlines there would be legitimate grounds for claiming he's an economic extremist given that only 14% of the public support the idea, while 68% oppose it, but he's certainly not proposing that. And even if he was proposing a more radical left-wing policy like that, it's still not quite as extremist or unpopular as the Tory policies of privatising police services (87% against - 3% in favour), the NHS (84% against - 10% in favour) and schools (81% against - 6% in favour).

So the next time you hear a right-winger trying to deride Jeremy Corbyn as an economic extremist, you've got to realise that they're taking you for an idiot and trying to con you into believing that black is white.

And whenever you see someone from the mainstream media refusing to hold the right-winger to account over this kind of Orwellian deception, remember that they're making themselves absolutely complicit in the con.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Note: All public opinion percentages used in this article and header image are sourced from this May 2017 opinion poll from YouGov