Tuesday 18 February 2020

The Trouble With Misfits and Weirdo's

Apart from the fact that sometimes 'misfits and weirdo's' get elected, yesterday's attempt by Dominic Cummings to install another one in No 10 amply demonstrates that even if ever-so bright, they haven't quite grasped the brutal realities of the politics being practiced by our new totalitarian regime, together with the effect of counter-measures by a well pissed-off and excluded media. 

Despite Boris's refusal to denounce the 'old media stuff' of Andrew Sabisky, become the story and you find yourself being very firmly encouraged to walk in front of a bus. In addition to complaining about 'character assasination', apparently he's complaining about out of context 'selective quoting' as well and outlined here in the Guardian:-   

Andrew Sabisky, who resigned as a No 10 adviser on Monday night, had been criticised for a series of controversial opinions he had expressed publicly.

He claimed in 2014 in a blogpost that there was a racial difference in intelligence:

"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences in intelligence are significantly – even mostly – genetic in origin, though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly debate.
That debate busily bustles on, and I’m sure we’ll have more precise answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will pay any attention is debatable.
It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration control (in the UK, that is)."
He suggested in a 2014 blogpost reply that black Americans are on average less intelligent than white Americans:
"If the mean black American IQ is (best estimate based on a century’s worth of data) around 85, as compared to a mean white American IQ of 100, then if IQ is normally distributed (which it is), you will see a far greater percentage of blacks than whites in the range of IQs 75 or below, at which point we are close to the typical boundary for mild mental retardation. Typically criminals with IQs below 70 cannot be executed in the USA, I believe.
That parsimoniously explains the greater diagnostic rates for blacks when it comes to ‘Intellectual disability’.
Sabisky suggested introducing compulsory contraception under a blogpost by Dominic Cummings in 2014:
"One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue."
He proposed allocation of government money based on IQ tests for all 11-year-olds under a blogpost by Dominic Cummings in 2015:
"Why not just give everyone an IQ test at 11 and give secondary schools pupil premium money based on the number of below-average-ability students they get – the correlation between IQ [at] 11 and GCSE score 5 years later is a hefty .8!”
In a review of the book The Welfare Trait by Dr Adam Perkins in 2016 he suggested that benefits claimants could be discouraged from having lots of children:
"A large body of evidence, which Perkins reviews, supports the intuitive idea that habitual welfare claimants tend to be less conscientious and agreeable than the average person.
Such habitual claimants also tend to reproduce at higher rates than the general population, a pattern found across nations and time periods … With praiseworthy boldness, Perkins gets off the fence and recommends concrete policy solutions for the problems that he identifies, arguing that governments should try to adjust the generosity of welfare payments to the point where habitual claimants do not have greater fertility than those customarily employed … The explicit targeting of fertility as a goal of welfare policy, however, goes beyond current government policy.
Perkins perhaps should also have argued for measures to boost the fertility of those with pro-social personalities, such as deregulation of the childcare and housing markets to cut the costs of sustainable family formation.”
On the Good Judgment Project website in 2016 he argued that Turkey joining the EU should be a non-starter over its “troublesome” migrants:
"The EU already has enough of a problem with migration – the entire population of Turkey being granted freedom to move to any European nation is absolutely unthinkable. Giving Turkey EU membership would be a bit like drinking a bottle of bleach in an effort to cure your appendicitis."
In Schools Week 2016 he argued that drugs for narcolepsy could be used to improve brain function, even though there are health risks:
"From a societal perspective the benefits of giving everyone modafinil once a week are probably worth a dead kid once a year.”
Sabisky questioned in a book review in 2014 of Tatu Vanhanen’s Ethnic Conflicts whether a growing Muslim population could be met with violent resistance, using a discredited statistic:
"Will institutionalized power-sharing (as in Northern Ireland) become the norm in the West – not between Catholic and Protestant, but between Muslim and non-Muslim (by around 2050 Britain is forecast to be a majority Islamic nation on current birthrate trends)? How much internal resistance will there be to the adaptation of current institutions? How much of the resistance, and counter-resistance, will be violent?”
--oo00oo-- 

Of course the attempt to install advisers like Andrew Sabisky serves to confirm much of what many of us know only too well about the very nasty party that has just won a great election victory. The attacks on the BBC, the brutal sacking of any dissenting voices within the government, the exclusion of unsympathetic media and dark hints about constitutional and judicial 'reform' all point alarmingly to Fascist leanings and all decent-minded people should be alarmed. Actually it raises something that's been bothering me a great deal for some time and I don't think I'm alone.

We're all aware of the monumental changes that have afflicted this profession over the last 10 years or more and particularly the growing cultural and practicing gulf between the new and old attitudes and beliefs. Many of us 'old-timers' feel the essential core beliefs that underpin the probation ethos have been eroded almost to the point of extinction and the lead-up to the recent General Election crystalised that view for many in some very angry exchanges on Facebook when some practitioners began voicing intentions to vote Conservative. 

Many, including myself, found it very hard indeed to reconcile that stated intention with the policies and actions of a political party that had so demonstrably harmed the vast majority of the people we work with. The situation for me was very eloquently put by the following statement and I very much hope the author does not mind my reproducing it anonymously here:- 

"Yes, I fully expect this to be seen as a monumental flounce and I'm aware that I don't need to announce my exit from this super group, but I'm going to do it anyway as what I have to say is more important than ever.

Whilst I respect people have the right to support which ever political party, it is simply unconscionable to support the Tory party at this election, even more so to be vocal about it whilst spewing out right wing media nonsense.

It's highly likely that most of us belong to a union and have, at one time or another, relied upon their help and support or benefited from their efforts in terms of pay/working rights and so to then support a political party that hates unions and the power they give workers, is hypocrisy of the highest order.

This is then exacerbated by the fact that, as front line workers working with some of the most disadvantaged, disenfranchised and marginalised vulnerable adults in the country, we will have seen first hand the devastation brought upon these individuals and communities under the ideological pursuit of a politically driven austerity agenda. All whilst the very richest benefited from the tax cuts and breaks that helped them see their income grow by over 185%.

And that is all without touching on the absolute ruin the Tory party has inflicted on the criminal justice system as a whole.

Over the past decade the Tory party has brought this country to it's knees, public services have been cut to the bone, an extra 130,000 people have died thanks to austerity, the NHS is close to collapse, our police force has been decimated, libraries closed, A&E departments closed, ambulances stations closed, 7000 hospital beds lost, billions cut from the social care budget, our children's education budgets slashed or moved into private and barely accountable 'academies', unprecedented number of food banks and food bank usage, a 400% rise in homelessness in some areas, council budgets destroyed, the list goes on and on. Not to mention the fact that your pay has been held back by them!

If you can sit and honestly read all the havoc and total misery that has been inflicted on this country since 2010 and think 'yeah, I'm voting Tory' then we have very little in common and I'd rather not spend my time listening or reading the right wing media rubbish you regurgitate, without an iota of critical thinking, to justify your position."

5 comments:

  1. There are innumerable 'minor tweaks' being made by those who have had hands on the controls since 2010, most of which are happening unannounced & generally unseen unless or until someone stumbles upon it & raises the alarm.

    Yesterday on 'This Is Money' - "Dismay for 25 million savers as NS&I slashes rates as low as 0.6% - and halves monthly winners of £50 and £100 prizes on Premium Bonds"

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-8012653/Premium-Bond-prizes-cut-half-winning-50-100.html

    Today on The Times site (paywall): "Millions of savers have been dealt a blow after National Savings & Investments slashed payouts on accounts and Premium Bonds.

    The government-backed savings bank, which has 25 million customers, has reduced rates on 14 products by up to 0.45 percentage points. The Premium Bond prize pot has also been cut."

    I suppose they have to feed that magic money tree...

    From 2009: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+30bn+tory+cuts/3366512.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/opinion/house-commons/109944/daisy-cooper-mp-cabinet-reshuffle

      Delete
    2. When the Government rides roughshod over people’s rights, the law is our vehicle for justice. When the Ministry of Defence sent soldiers into combat in Iraq without the proper equipment; when outrageous Home Office fees denied children their rights as citizens; when patients died from substandard care at Stafford Hospital, it was the courts we turned to for justice.

      But now, the Conservatives are trying to stop people from exercising power against a Government when it – wilfully or inadvertently – tramples on their rights. First they cut legal aid. Now they’re threatening judicial review and the courts themselves.

      With their Cabinet reshuffle on Thursday, Boris Johnson and his chief adviser Dominic Cummings demonstrated that they are not interested in competence, and certainly not in diversity. (They’ve somehow managed to reduce the already tiny numbers of women and BAME people in Cabinet posts!) What they are interested is their own power.

      The Business and Northern Ireland Secretaries were sacked for not showing sufficient loyalty. The Lord Chancellor was made to bend the knee to Cummings, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to resign because he wouldn’t. And Geoffrey Cox – deemed too independent-minded for Johnson’s taste – was replaced as Attorney General by Suella Braverman.

      Braverman has written frequently about her desire to weaken our courts, limit judicial review and roll back protections for human rights. By appointing her as the Government’s chief legal adviser, Johnson and Cummings are trying to erode one of the most crucial constraints on their power: not intransigent Cabinet Ministers but the rule of law itself.

      Johnson and Cummings have repeatedly demonstrated that they believe they are above the law.

      After the Supreme Court ruled that their decision to shut down Parliament in September was unlawful, disturbing threats of retaliation emerged from Number 10: ending the independence of the courts by making judges political appointees; restricting people’s ability to ask the courts to review the lawfulness of government actions; withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (which, of course, had nothing to do with that case).

      But Cummings’ loathing of the courts goes back much further than Brexit, prorogation and Lady Hale’s spider brooch.

      When he was Michael Gove’s adviser at the Department for Education he published a rambling 237-page manifesto entitled “Some thoughts on education and political priorities”. In footnote 199 (!) he wrote that: “management decisions are undermined many times per day by advice to do things ‘to avoid losing a judicial review’”.

      Further on (footnote 227), he argued that “massive changes are vital” – not just to judicial review but also to “the role of lawyers and legal advice in Whitehall” and the UK’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. And be in no doubt: those “changes” he’s talking about aren’t about strengthening the rule of law; they’re about enabling Conservative Ministers to act without regard to the law.

      Essentially, Cummings believes that Gove would have been a super-successful Education Secretary, if only those pesky civil servants hadn’t forced him to obey the law. And Cummings is determined to make sure that, now he’s in Number 10, he and Boris Johnson don’t have their power limited by the same restraints.

      This should be incredibly alarming, no matter your political persuasion. The rule of law is fundamental to our society, and Johnson and Cummings are actively working to undermine it.

      Be in no doubt what their plans to weaken the courts, limit judicial review and unpick the Human Rights Act would mean. They would allow Ministers to break the law with impunity. They would enable the Government to violate your rights. They would make it harder to secure inquiries or put things right when mistakes are made.

      Delete
    3. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-alarming-record-of-the-new-attorney-general-suella-braverman-courts-law-judicial-review-constitution-commission

      The news of Suella Braverman’s appointment as the new attorney general has been met with widespread derision. Apart from pompous mocking of her relative inexperience as a lawyer, her apparent membership of a Buddhist cult and links to bizarre media performances, there is legitimate concern regarding her attitudes towards the judiciary. Civil liberty groups have expressed alarm about government plans to stifle judicial review of government decisions. The genesis of this policy appears, inevitably, to be Dominic Cummings—who has recently raged at court decisions and created a commission to, in the words of one insider, “get the judges sorted.”

      Braverman, an ardent Brexiteer, is a perfect fit in this context. With a long-standing grievance against the Human Rights Act and a pristine illiberal voting record, a few weeks before her promotion, she wrote a piece arguing that “parliament must retrieve power ceded to another place—the courts.” The headline, while likely not written by Braverman, declared: “People we elect must take back control from people we don’t. Who include the judges.”

      https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/109906/who-suella-braverman-new-attorney-general
      _______________________________________

      https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25272/suella_braverman/fareham/votes

      Consistently voted against equal gay rights

      Voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex

      Consistently voted against laws to promote equality and human rights

      Voted against investigations into the Iraq war

      Consistently voted for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU

      Generally voted against a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK

      Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

      Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

      Almost always voted against higher taxes on banks

      Consistently voted for more restrictive regulation of trade union activity

      Consistently voted for reducing capital gains tax

      Almost always voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax

      Voted for reforming the NHS so GPs buy services on behalf of their patients

      Consistently voted for phasing out secure tenancies for life

      Almost always voted against measures to prevent climate change

      Consistently voted for merging police and fire services under Police and Crime Commissioners

      Consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities

      Delete
  2. This confirms what I was forced to conclude when the result of the last general election came out. I now live in a banana republic run by an unaccountable madman. He will do whatever he wants and nobody can stop him.

    ReplyDelete