In a series of X/Twitter posts prefaced with the observation that "The British people are compassionate", she distinguished between the genuinely homeless and those for whom bedding down in shop doorways is "a lifestyle choice". Some of them are even "foreign", she adds. According to a splash in the FT, Braverman wants to see the banning of tents in urban centres and fines for charities that hand them out to homeless people. It's the typical cruelty that comes from the Tories as a matter of routine. There is no ground conceded to how Tory policies have exacerbated the housing crisis in this country and seen tens of thousands lose their home (just shy of 300,000 were registered homeless last Winter). And, naturally, the problem isn't dealt with at source. It's much to give the people they've slung onto the streets a punishment beating.
It's often argued here that conservative philosophy, such as it is, is bunk. This is because the nation comes first before all divisions and conservatism supposedly safeguards the national community. It's pure poppycock, a lie so transparent it's not even convincing enough to be an ideology. Time and again Tory policy is not about supporting people and building things but finding wedge issues to divide people up in a conscious promotion of beggar-thy-neighbour politics. And this is not a recent thing, as wet briefcase Tories like Rory Stewart and David Gauke pretend. Prior to the "populist turn" under Boris Johnson in which the Tories became the Brexit Party/UKIP, between 2010 and 2016 Dave and Osborne mercilessly traduced anyone dependent on social security. Including and especially disabled people and sufferers of chronic illnesses. Between 1997 and 2005 the Tories regularly employed xenophobia and scraped the anti-immigration barrel. Remember their scaremongering ahead of several East European states entering the EU in 2004? And do we really need to remind ourselves of the Thatcher-Major years? The "enemy within"? The unemployed? LGBTQ people? Single mums? Division is the Tory stock-in-trade. No institution has undermined the social fabric of this country more then their wretched party.
With recent polling suggesting a certain weariness toward culture war issues, attacking the homeless is Braverman pivoting away from her usual targets. Not keen on these scapegoats? Don't worry, I have others. Whoever the groups of people she has in her sights are, everything she does is with an eye not to the electorate and winning votes but securing her chances as Tory leader after the coming wipeout. Are the members radicalised enough to vote for this deeply unpleasant NF-adjacent chancer? With most of the overtly racist brigade now decamped to Reform or retirement from politics she could be overplaying her hand. We'll have to see.
Just over three years ago we saw the Tories abolish homelessness overnight in their package of Covid emergency measures. It's a problem they effectively recreated by withdrawing support when things returned to normal. Because promising nothing is central to Tory politics under Rishi Sunak, constructive solutions to problems are ruled out in advance. They have to be subordinated to the politics of permanent campaigning which, for the Tories, means turning homelessness into a wedge issue in which the most vulnerable are demonised and brutalised, and no one is taken off the streets and found accommodation.
9 comments:
Suella Braverman is a lifestyle choice. If the Government cares so much about Armistice Day, despite not knowing the meaning of the word “armistice”, then why do veterans sleep in the tents that the Home Secretary so deplores, although she does not deplore them in the good way? And those veterans are relatively fortunate. Not all of them have tents.
Michael Gove is said to be preparing to redefine nonviolent extremism as, “the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.” People are saying that the first arrest ought to be of Braverman. But while she does make a significant contribution to such overturning and undermining, she does not do so nonviolently. Yet what are we offered instead? Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper. Tony Blair used to say exactly the sort of things about the homeless that Braverman says now. No doubt he still does.
«Remember their scaremongering ahead of several East European states entering the EU in 2004?»
It was indeed completely baseless: thanks to that wages substantially rose and housing became much more affordable :-).
«Division is the Tory stock-in-trade. No institution has undermined the social fabric of this country more then their wretched party.»
That is the usual misunderstanding of Conservative/New Labour/LibDem attitudes: for them "this country" is "Middle England" (and "Upper England") and they are very keen to maintain its social fabric and unity against all would-be parasites and exploiters, who are not part of "this country".
Consider my usual quote about handouts to "Middle England" speculators who built houses in flood plains:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26131515
«Fourteen severe flood warnings remain in place in Berkshire and Surrey and two remain in Somerset. Around 1,000 properties have been evacuated [...] Mr Cameron said: "Money is no object in this relief effort. Whatever money is needed, we will spend it."»
The question is often who is "our own". I think that is not a political, economic, or sociological question, but anthropological. Sometimes I think that political and social issues, including cultural ones, are far more based on anthropological aspects than recognized under pervasive "whig" (individualistic, "rationalist") ideology.
And she throws in an attack on Rishi Sunak's preferred family location after politics - California - for bad measure. Presumably this is to highlight that it is a woke lifestyle choice to live in a tent in the street. It goes with other lifestyle choices like free swimming and free running. You would think she would be more careful in criticsing the land of the free and free enterprise.
As an aside, perhaps we need to examine the degree markings that Oxford awards. Sulla, Liz, Johnson and various others came out with 'good' degrees but seem to lack analytical skills, an ability to handle complex ideas or articulate sophisticated arguments. Name calling seems to be the height of their intellectual capability.
David Lindsay wrote above 'Michael Gove is said to be preparing to redefine nonviolent extremism as, “the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.”'
Is that perhaps angled as a basis on which to make it illegal to even talk about getting rid of that great stinking corpse in the halls of our politics, FPTP...? Nu-nu-Labour are as beholden to that pile of festering offal as any other entity (it's one of only two genuine reasons that the Labour right wing has to call itself "electable"), so Govey could rest assured that the impending change of the guard won't stop it.
Scottish nationalism is another obvious target for pre-planned scope creep, of course.
«the degree markings that Oxford awards. Sulla, Liz, Johnson and various others came out with 'good' degrees but seem to lack analytical skills, an ability to handle complex ideas or articulate sophisticated arguments.»
These are all smart, capable, well educated people who have learned (often by taking expensive coaching) to do salestalk/propaganda.
As to political salestalk here is one of my favourite quotes:
“Attended a gathering with Ann Widdecombe last night. All only of historic interest but for one comment.
To get on in politics you have to have a political personality and the best way to acquire that according to the ladder climbers is to get on Have I got News for You.”
The average tory voter actually is not stupid, but does not care about how simple-minded their representatives speak, they only care that they make them a lot of money with booming property rents and prices, and keep "losers" down and away. Some simplistic posturing is just means to reassure the tory voters that their representatives intend to do their worst.
«"[...] overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.”' Is that perhaps angled as a basis on which to make it illegal to even talk about getting rid of that great stinking corpse in the halls of our politics, FPTP...?»
It may end up being used that way too, but I reckon that Gove mostly is just pandering to the tory base as one of their core demands is "Make No Waves": for them every change is not an opportunity but a threat because they have had rising living standards for decades and are enjoying the comforts of affluence powered by property profits and final salary pensions delivered to them by all three thatcherite parties.
«redefine nonviolent extremism as, “the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.”»
Gove might as well gain the cheers of every thatcherite by calling it the "There Is No Alternative" bill, as in effect it would turn Her command into law.
Well, not to worry, we'll have a Labour government soon, probably. They'll be much better (a wee joke for youse, there).
See Starmer's refusal to call for a ceasefire and Reeve's display of subservience to the ruling ideas (would you believe a Labour-right politician admires Thatcher? What a surprise.), if you had any remaining shred of hope that a Starmer-led government will change anything.
She is basically evil, in the literal sense of the word.
Post a Comment