Don't keep calm - get angry

I have been political in the past on this blog, but reading ‘To Isaiah’ by Dr Don Berwick this week has stirred up some more feelings of agitated anger towards some of the things being perpetrated by our ‘compassionate conservative’ government.

Don Berwick is an inspirational figure in the field I am currently employed in and was hand-picked by President Obama to introduce the reform of the American healthcare system so villainously and stupidly opposed by right wing America. ‘To Isaiah’ is the commencement address to the graduating class at Harvard University medical school. That sounds dull. It really isn’t.

There are three quotes in Don Berwick’s address that have particularly struck me. The first is by Antoine de Saint-Exupery:

“To become a man is to be responsible; to be ashamed of miseries that you did not cause.”

I am deeply ashamed – mortified to the point of anger by the on-going widening inequality between the rich and the poor in this country. I feel helpless with barely controlled rage when smarmy Dave Cameron and his equally clueless toffee-arsed chums bleat on about how they understand that life is hard for ‘hard-working families’ but ‘we’re all in this together’. I find it shameful to be living in a country where job centre managers are being given suicide prevention training because of the numbers of desperate people they are seeing each day. It hounds me to the core.
The second quote is from the late Senator Hubert Humphrey:

“The moral test of government is how it treats people in the dawn of life, the children, in the twilight of life, the aged, and in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

So, how are we doing on this? How are the people living in the shadows? I tweeted recently how thousands of people are being denied disability living allowance under tough new governmental rules – and how, hypocritically, millionaire David Cameron and his wife Samantha claimed DLA themselves when their disabled son, Ivan, was alive.

I felt sorry for David Cameron when Ivan died. But I wonder what kind of bereaved father would wilfully turn the screw on parents who are going through the same experience of living with a disabled child.

Let’s be clear – the austerity cuts, the assault on the NHS, the denial of basic services to the community and particularly to the poor and needy are only ideological. They stem from a Tory conviction that the rich should not have to ‘subsidise’ the poor, that you are not your brother’s keeper, that if your neighbour only has one cloak you should take it from him if he owes you money, that compassion is only due to those you consider ‘deserving’, that the market is the divine authority and that the poor will always be with us so why bother trying to change things.

A remark on Twitter caught my eye today – on forming a government the Conservative’s priority was dismantling a working NHS. The rotten-to-the-core irredeemably corrupt banking system, which has yet again been exposed for the criminal racket it really was, attracted no attention. Bankers caused the global economic crisis that has been handily used as cover for the undermining, underfunding and destruction of the welfare state infrastructure. Have bankers been punished? Have they even been investigated?

There was an alternative to austerity – close the tax loopholes that allowed huge thieving companies like Goldman Sachs and Vodafone to pay less tax than the average corner shop. Deals were cut between HMRC and the accountants in those companies that were as unscrupulous as anything the traders at Barclay’s have been up to recently. Did the Tory government act when these came to light? Well, you know the answer to that.

And that gives the lie to the necessity of the austerity cuts. That gives the lie to the necessity of further impoverishing the disabled, the blind, the ill and the poor. That emphasises how these swindlers and conmen in government are in cahoots with the conmen and swindlers in the city and how the deliberate removal of what amount to a pitiful percentage of government expenditure, but means everything to the needy, is motivated by nothing more than an ideological, implacable hatred of ‘scroungers’ and ‘spongers’ by the wealthy.

This has happened by carefully and calculatingly distracting people. Firstly by the mythical debt that we had to pay off – although nobody I have ever asked could tell me exactly who this debt was owed to. Then by the righteous anger directed at the rioters, most of whom were uneducated dumbass kids from the worst of London’s sink estates. Then, by the wickedness perpetrated by journalists, although once that crept close to the government’s door it has been far less of a soapbox issue for politicians. And then by the Jubilympics, the endless stream of Union Jack tat, and the artificial excitement encouraged by a government led by a man who wanted everyone outside at street parties rather than paying attention to what was going on.

All this has happened in a haze of denial – encouraged by the incessant variation of a common theme: Keep Calm and Carry On. This ubiquitous message, to be quiet and shoulder the burden and just get through to the sunny lands promised on the other side of the long, hard, trek to freedom, is a meme that keeps coming back, and very convenient it is too. It appeals to the British stoicism, the ‘mustn’t grumble’ brigade, the ‘it’ll turn out alright in the end’ wishful thinkers.

But, no! We shouldn’t keep calm and carry on. We should get angry and change things.

This thought-train started by reading ‘To Isaiah’ (although much of it had been brewing for a while). I want to end with an original line from Dr Don Berwick that I found irresistibly prophetic:

 “A nation that fails to attend to the needs of those less fortunate among us risks its soul.”

Where is our soul?

David Cameron's 'Christian country' comments

David Cameron is now on record as saying "Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so".

He said this in a speech marking the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. He went on to say “the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today."

It's interesting to hear what David Cameron said and think about what he possibly meant by the phrase, a ‘Christian country’.

The phrase ‘Christian country’ seems to crop up regularly, among people bemoaning the state of things, but what does it mean? It’s usually one of those ‘hark back to the past’ phrases, when we recall the ‘good old days’.

So, this would be the Christian country that got rich off the back of the transatlantic trade in human livestock. Eventually, yes we finally stopped selling fellow humans as chattels, but we weren’t done with exploitation. We were a solidly ‘Christian country’ during the Industrial Revolution, which crowded the poor into cities of slums, where most of them died of cholera and typhus. We were a ‘Christian country’ of workhouses, prostitution, gin palaces and opium dens.

Or maybe you’re thinking about the ‘Christian country’ of the twentieth century. The ‘Christian country’ that conscripted teenagers, gave them six weeks training in Ireland, shipped them to France and sent them over the top into the bloody mist of the Somme, where only 1 in 4 kids made it back alive. The ‘Christian country’ that authorised the military to open fire on civilians protesting the working conditions down the South Wales coal mines. The ‘Christian country’ that operated a political Empire for the first half of the century and then repeatedly stitched up the developing world through economic imperialism for the second half.

I’m just saying, our nation’s history ain’t particularly glorious or enlightened and I’m not sure any faith should be tainted by association with it. In fact, many of the best examples of British Christians, from Wilberforce, to Barnardo, to Booth, spent their time as outsiders to the prevailing culture of this ‘Christian country’, regarded as annoying, or awkward, or cranks.

But apparently, emphasising our Christian-ness as a country will prevent "moral collapse". David said: "Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal, or the ongoing terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world, one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn't going to cut it anymore."

Well, yeah, much as it pains me to agree with a tory leader, I would agree with that. To an extent.

I’m a bit concerned by the phrase ‘moral neutrality’ – I’m not sure what he’s criticising there. It looks to me like a sop to the vocal Christian extremists who believe we would fix everything in society if we just banned abortion.

But you don’t need to be a Christian to make an ethical distinction between behaviour that is right and wrong. In fact, David knows that – he said being a Christian wasn’t a "necessary nor sufficient condition for morality" but having a faith could be a "helpful prod in the right direction". So we’re a ‘Christian country’, but that’s no guarantee that people who call themselves Christians will do the right thing. Good to know.

He also said: “just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics.” I’m sorry, what? I have to disagree with that statement.

What reading of the Bible justifies the persecution of the vulnerable, the widening of the gaps between the haves and have-nots, the granting of favours to the rich and powerful, and the general acquiescence to the amoral profiteering of the markets?

David Cameron’s politics are not “steeped in the Bible”. They have never been seen near the Bible. (Unless he’s reading the list of Israelite kings who “did evil in the sight of the Lord” and has got the wrong end of the stick.)

Okay, I’m in danger of editorialising there, but either living a Christian faith is a departure from ‘normal’, acquisitive, selfish human behaviour, or it isn’t. You either love your neighbour or you don’t.

He does say: "The absence of any real accountability, or moral code, allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society.” That’s a very interesting thing for him to say, considering he has done sod all to challenge that behaviour.

David’s government are just about the only European government to oppose the institution of the financial transactions tax (‘Robin Hood tax’), he has refused to crack down on bankers bonuses, and he has supported the head of his tax division who cut numerous shady deals with financial institutions so they could get off paying tax.

Maybe he thinks a semi-stern telling off will solve the problem. He gets to wag the finger at the banks in the confines of a church and so they’ll all listen to him and sort themselves out – do the decent thing, and all that. No, David, maybe you’ll have to man up and fill that vacuum of “real accountability” and get tough with the city boys who keep screwing everyone over.

To do that you would need a clear sense of right and wrong. The problem is David wants it both ways – he wants a free market system and he wants morality. But markets and morality are incompatible. Markets follow the money, and mammon is amoral. You have to apply your morality to the market – make the market serve your purpose – for the market to deliver any social good. That’s why a planned economy brought about the NHS and affordable housing for millions, and also why market economies have made housing unaffordable and turned our health system into a postcode lottery.

So, he wants a nice moral system, but he isn’t willing to impose anything to make it so. Cameron’s comments about faith indicate his levels of confusion.

“Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong. I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger.”

So, basically, we’re a Christian country where “many” people aren’t Christians. Not sure how that works, but okay.

He described himself as a "committed but vaguely practising Church of England Christian", or to put it another way, a ‘committed and uncommitted’ Christian. Which explains why he wants everyone to do the right thing, but is too scared to make them.

And finally, he admitted he was "full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues". Presumably that includes big issues like how to live out Christian values you’re only vaguely committed to, and practice politics that are ‘steeped’ in a Bible he’s blatantly never read.

Good luck with that, David.

'Fair' spending cuts will hit the poorest hardest

So, the news today was that it looks like the "fair" spending cuts are going to hit the poorest hardest.

Weeeeeeelllllll, who could have seen that coming? What, nice Mr Cameron and his true blue tory chums are going to further marginalise the marginalised. Shock! Horror! Surely not...!

Well, yeah. Because tories play to type. Conservatism in its very nature is about preserving the status quo. And the status quo is that there are rich people and there are poor people. And the rich people want to stay rich and the poor, well who cares, they're not important, or 'respectable', or stimulating the economy.

Since taking power the tories have announced they are going to 'liberate' the NHS, with a document that within the NHS is regarded as privatisation in all but name. The tories have used a notable tax-dodger to review public expenditure and identify wastage. Oh, and they upset middle class people by threatening to cut child benefit - which nice Mr Cameron resolutely and passionately declared they Would Not Do.

Last week I heard an interesting presentation by the boss of Mori, the opinion pollsters. He said that broadly speaking a majority of people liked the idea of a 'big society'. The problem was only a handful of people wanted to be the people serving others in the 'big society'.

Which reminds me that last year when I worked in the charity sector, some people I worked with got excited about David Cameron's idea that charities could partner with government to deliver services. 'How great!' they cried. 'A government who will work with us.'

They were idiots. This 'partnership' is a scheme to get charities to shoulder the costs of caring for the poorer ends of society when government withdraws. It's not partnership - it's the government saying "We don't want to do this any more... over to you! Yay now we can afford a tax cut at election time to our chums in the City!"

The thing is charities are unreliable. They don't have secure income streams. There is huge variation in what they can do on the ground in different areas. They rely on goodwill to get through most of the time. And they are feeling the pinch as a result of the recession.

Yeah, let's use them. What a brilliant idea.

Now you could say, "Well, Jon, it's obvious where your political sympathies lie and you just have an antipathy towards tories. This is your excuse for laying into nice Mr Cameron and his liberal desperate sidekick, who are both saying the figures have been skewed and the poor won't really get screwed. Where's the fair and even-handed reportage that we ought to have on this blog?"

You know what, no. No balance. I don't need to say anything when international slime-hound Rupert Murdoch is sticking up for Cameron. That's all the balance we need.