The Real Cost of Privatisation

The United Kingdom's current cost of living crisis has been fueled to a large extent by the astronomical rise in energy costs resulting from the lifting of caps on energy tariffs. The rise in energy costs has meant tha not only are people facing economic hardship but there is also a real risk to life stemming from an inability to heat homes during the cold months. There are certainly questions to be asked about whether the UK government has done enough to protect citizens against dramatic energy cost increases and whether it has responded effectively to the prospect of millions of people not being able to afford to pay their energy bills. What is happening to domestic energy costs illustrates the dangers of privatising essential public services.

Recent events involving the Royal Mail, National Grid, rail services and the energy sector demonstrate the long term risks of privatising essential services that are critical to the day to day lives of people. When such public services put making a profit over the welfare and safety of people the adverse effects on people’s lives can be devastating. It is becoming increasingly clear that privatising is not proving a cheaper way to run public corporations. The costs being racked up in rescuing or shoring up these privatised entities are greatly exceeding what would have been the cost of running them by the government.

The energy sector has fought to lift price caps leading to tariffs that are risking lives and ruining businesses. Rail companies have been steadily increasing fares and cutting services. The National Grid is warning about blackouts during the coldest months after a period of declaring millions in profits. The Royal Mail has become unrecognisable with erratic service delivery and threats to lay off thousands of staff to remain profitable. These companies have no problems with paying out huge dividends but seem to balk at investing profits in service improvement and innovation.  

The ideal of privatisation was to create more efficient production and introduce competition in order to make productivity more economical and drive prices down. What in fact has happened is that privatised companies have prioritised profits and dividends rather than cheaper services for consumers. These are services that are meant to be essential for the smooth running of people lives and businesses. Yet we are consistently getting threats of service withdrawal because almost all profits are being funnelled out to shareholders. In reality it has not been viable to run these services as private profit making companies.

The reality of privatising essential public services has been poorer service provision and increased hardship for majority of the public using those services. The opposition to privatising is not about condemning profit making but about ensuring that people and business can get access to the services they need in a way that is fair and reasonable. 

Really Recognising Racism

If people really want to know what racism really is how about checking out the growing trend of whole swathes of people referencing Black Lives Matter whenever there is an issue with law enforcement or some criminal situation has become a topic of discussion. It is almost as if these people believe that because Black Lives Matter society has become a chaotic lawless dystopia. Or peep the fact that ever since the idea and movement that Black Lives Matter has entered the public consciousness all of a sudden people seem to be discovering all these other things that matter; as long as they aren’t Black lives. 

If we are absolutely determined to have our heart strings pulled at the evils of racism suffered by celebrities then we can easily reference Harry Belafonte, Spike Lee, Serena Williams, Colin Kaepernick, Ray Fisher, Gabrielle Union or Holly Robinson-Peete. These are people who have suffered from abuse, exclusion, blacklisting, objectification and loss of employment because of their race. Racism is no longer manifesting subversively or in dark corners of society. The KKK no longer need to wear hoods, except when they dress up for the annual Christmas party. There are many tales to tell to highlight the mental anguish racism is causing but I guess those interviews would be unlikely to net Harpo a $9m payday from the news networks.

Every person of colour has probably experienced racism in some general or unique way but it is not necessarily true that every experience of a person of colour is attributable to racism. We should be able to distinguish the experience of racism from other negative or damaging experiences that manifest as a standard, if largely unwelcome, part of the human life. While we need to be acutely aware of the inherently racist nature of western society and culture; we also need to watch out for instances where claims of racism is being used to further people's self interests.

There certainly is racism in Britain. The U.K. government’s “hostile environment” policy and the unjust deportation of ‘Windrush descendants’ has been a targeted effort to scapegoat and deprive Black people of their lawful rights and entitlements. Consider the way people of colour have been disproportionately affected by the covid-19 pandemic. In spite of the evidence pointing to the fact that as a result of deprivation, exclusion, poverty and health inequalities people of colour have been more at risk from infection and death by the virus the British government censored an official report into the impact of the pandemic on minorities and declared that race had no effect on infection or mortality. When it became clear that there was a higher incidence of infection in people of colour rather than mandate risk assessments for staff from minority ethnic groups the NHS management indicated that staff had to individually request for risk assessments themselves. Now that’s your illustration of institutional racism.

Every day we have cases of young Black people being racially profiled by the police. This has led to a disproportionate number of them being stopped and searched; and even killed while being arrested or in custody. Children of colour are being marginalised in the educational system all the time. Too many of them are being pushed towards unskilled employment, sports or show business and away from academics and highly skilled professions because they are not considered to have the aptitude for it by their teachers. British culture and institutions are inherently racist. You get a different level of care depending on which hospital, school or bank you go to. Inevitably access to these establishments is determined by status or wealth. This naturally excludes almost all people of colour. The value placed on circumstance of birth, ancestry and social title speaks to a society that seeks to perpetuate privilege and exclude those who are different, and thus less worthy.

Is the British royal family a racist institution? Absolutely, without a doubt. How can an entity built on the notion of birth being a basis for status and authority; and built on the back of imperialism, colonialism, oppression, murder and prejudice not be discriminatory? As long as it maintains its slavish adoption of birthright entitlement then it will remain racist. They may talk about fulfilling a duty of public service but public service should be a personal calling not something imposed autocratically by a select group of class determined elites. The royal family is also misogynistic, chauvinistic, anachronistic, privileged, entitled and semi-literate. But if you are going to marry into it then you need to draw a line in the sand and set out your terms for a dignified and free relationship before your nuptials. You can't expect to joyously sign on the dotted line then happily thrive in the warm embrace of a hateful legacy.

There is huge amount of work that needs to be done to address the issue of systemic racism in the UK. However, nothing in the recent discussions and exclamations does anything to get to the heart of the matter. And certainly time spent wishing the royal family integrates people of colour is wasted and unlikely to end in anything productive. Providing those people excluded with greater opportunities for education, fairness in employment, safe and secure living, reducing inequalities, tackling deprivation and avoiding poverty are where efforts need to be directed.

Troublingly Different

We can be of different gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, faith, ideology, ability and yet still find things to unite us. We all want love, safety, security, health, shelter, and the best for those we care about. We have no right to deprive anyone of any of these things; and no one should feel entitled to deprive us of it. Unfortunately, individual mindsets and society itself are being conditioned to believe inequality is the just dessert of the underclass.

There are so many contradictions in modern day American society; and too few Americans are doing enough to confront them. America wants to be strong but it can’t abide the idea of free or universal healthcare. America wants to be wealthy but it continues to sow the seeds of disunity and conflict across its communities. America wants to be safe but it holds fast to the idea that unfettered access to guns is at the heart of being American.

Law enforcement in America claims that its many killings and shootings of Black people is in response to the threat they pose, and are perceived to pose to law enforcement officers. However, the one thing that would drastically reduce that threat would be gun control. There is no doubt that a reduction of personal gun ownership would significantly reduce the cases of law enforcement officers being confronted by armed assailants. Unfortunately, history has shown that this would probably not equivalently result in a reduction of police brutality on Black people. The incidence of unarmed Black people being violently confronted or killed by the police speaks for itself.

Since after World War 2 when people from Africa and the Caribbean were ushered into Britain to help with the rebuilding of the shattered nation; they have been confronted with being told to go back to where they came from. This is still a common occurrence across the United Kingdom. There is a core of British people who just hate the presence of foreigners. They just won’t ever be British enough for them. There is another section of society that sees diversity as a threat. They continue to stereotype people of colour even when the objects of their vitriol were born in the UK and are actually British citizens.

Prejudice and discrimination are learned traits. As much as individuals and groups are the perpetrators of the rough and harsh justice being dealt out to minorities; it is society and its institutions that have normalised and reinforced the oppression that minorities have had to endure and live with. There has to be some recognition that there will be no real change in people until social institutions themselves are reconditioned. Any calls to defund the police, reform education, restructure healthcare, refocus the justice system, or address institutional racism are not about shutting down the institutions. Rather it’s about redirecting policy and retraining organisations to better meet the needs of a changing society. Improvements are needed and it will take a lot of work to make them happen. However, everyone will need to trouble themselves to make the difference that is needed for things to get better for all people. I believe this is what the late John Lewis, the American civil rights pioneer called; making “good trouble”.

The Corona of Our Souls

© Luke Viatour

It is interesting that in an era of globalisation where the world is meant to be wealthier and healthier the covid-19 virus has now left us closed off and isolated. An aunt of mine was telling me how she didn’t think that people who had never been to China should have to deal with the virus. I had to point out to her that even if she had never been to China; in reality China had definitely been to her. Her clothes, shoes, appliances were all most likely manufactured in China. The cost of seeking cheaper costs of production and bigger markets is that we need to do more to jointly manage risks and provide protection for all parts of the world.

We live in a country, and maybe world; where people are more responsive to being cared for than responsible for being caring. People freely go about with very little sense of duty towards one another but expect the ultimate sacrifice if they find themselves in jeopardy. Sometimes in times of crises you suddenly see the masses of people pulling apart rather than together. In the UK this has been demonstrated by panic buying and stockpiling of essential goods by some people.

The UK government hatched a cunning plan to cull the population through herd immunity. This has resulted in some people being refused treatment and ending up dying at home. In the US Congress, the Democrats had to battle it out with the Republicans to ensure that low income families got a reasonable stake of the trillion dollar stimulus package targeted at corporate America. Meanwhile, in the US state of Nevada they drew chalk outlines in a open air car park so the homeless people they intended to house their could be socially distanced. Somewhere else in America some politicians were attempting to stage a sneak attack on abortion rights by declaring abortions a non essential service. The president of Brazil went on Twitter to try and discredit efforts being made to curtail the spread of the disease. In India government workers ended up spraying migrant workers trying to get home with disinfectant meant for vehicles.

The actions of the human race continue to damage and threaten the future existence of life as we know it. The urge to kill and eat rare species of animal contributed to the Coronavirus pandemic that is wreaking havoc globally. The environment is badly damaged, and continuously under threat from pollution and poisoning stemming from humanity’s actions. Animals are being hunted for game and forced into extinction. Today we are being ravaged by covid-19 but twenty years ago it was ‘mad cow disease’ caused by questionable agricultural practices that was causing a healthcare and economic catastrophe.

Government neglect of the homeless has been brought into stark relief during this pandemic. However, the Coronavirus is just one of a myriad of afflictions that homeless people are at risk of. The fact that provision is being made for the homeless in order to combat the spread of covid-19 is an indication that it is financing that is deterring public services from providing effective support to the homeless to get them off the streets and the care they desperately need. There is a need to recognise that there needs to be a mandatory duty on central and local government to provide shelter and emotional care for the homeless. If a person with no fixed abode was found lying in the street with a broken leg they would be admitted into hospital and treated until they were healed. When homeless people, who often have mental health concerns, are found sleeping rough very little regard is given to providing treatment and accommodation for them until they are better. The homeless person has to literally navigate an over complicated bureaucracy just to get listened to.

The need for free access to primary healthcare is being demonstrated everyday. It isn’t possible to have a healthy and safe population if an individual’s means determines their ability to receive basic healthcare provision. Having a healthcare system that is responsive to the needs of the entire population is vital for public health.

The pandemic has forced some us to look inward and really take stock of who we are; and what should be important to us. For some, it has brought out something dark and disturbing in them that they have probably been trying all their lives to conceal. From panic buying and hoarding, to people having house parties and barbecues during lockdown there has been some mind boggling misbehaviour on display. It is understandable that people are scared and fearful for what might happen to them and what the future might hold. However, right now it is only by caring about the wellbeing of those around us that we can ensure our own wellbeing.

BREXIT Black & Blue

The current mess that is Brexit has proven clearly that politicians are mostly inclined to pursue their self and partisan interests ahead of the greater good. As a Black citizen of the United Kingdom life after Brexit is threatening to be both frightening and frustrating. The government is full of fools and frauds with very little moral standing. The opposition is full of dogmatic ideologues and short sighted political plodders. Brexit presents a range of social and economic problems for all people on the British isles, however there are likely to be a number of issues specific to Black and Minority Ethnic people. There has been an alarming rise in right wing nationalism and general xenophobia across Europe in recent times. This does not bode well for conditions that await Black people in the new order of things.

Travel around Europe will potentially become increasingly fraught for Black British citizens. Not only will they have to go through tough visa application processes but they are likely to be subjected to further scrutiny at point of entry. It isn’t a certainty that there will be prejudice in the process post Brexit but the current experience of Black non EU migrants and visitors suggests there is scope for discrimination.

Access to support or services while abroad will be variable. Since there won’t be a guarantee of entitlement officials’ prejudices will play a role in how Black people are treated in the event of an emergency or crisis.

An important contribution to quality of life for Black people living abroad is having family, relatives and friends visit them. Similarly being able to travel freely to visit loved ones is important. Maintaining those intimate connections with people living in the EU will become much harder. The likelihood is that

It is traditionally difficult for relatives outside the EU to get visas to visit the UK, and now it is going to be harder for relatives in the UK to get visas too. Ultimately this will affect a range of situations from family interaction to spouses being able to join their partners.

Almost all of Europe is likely to suffer adversely from Brexit but there is the potential that a heightened level of discrimination towards Black people might be one of the unintended consequences. This is something that the EU and UK should put formal processes in place to monitor and tackle as necessary.

Brexit: Theresa May's Bunker Buster

Brexit has proven to be Theresa May’s own personal Waterloo. Not so much because of the epic disaster it has turned into for her but because it has exposed her as the pedestrian politician she really is. Had David Cameron not resigned after the EU Referendum vote she would not have found herself catapulted into the role of prime minister. Had that not happened she would have continued her mediocre error prone stewardship in a ministerial capacity. 

As it is Theresa May assumed the role of prime minister promising; "Brexit means Brexit", "no deal is better than a bad deal" and the UK was about to take world trade agreements to a whole new level. What we are now left with is an ineffectual leader who has both failed to rally her own troops or put up much of a fight against her foreign opposition.

What we have seen is a prime minister who threw away her parliamentary majority, attempted (unsuccessfully) to conceal her true intentions during Brexit negotiations, and really has ended up broken and on her knees at a time the nation needs strong leadership. Theresa May has at every step of the way in the Brexit journey sacrificed sound management for political expediency. She came up with a deal that she didn't canvas support for before presenting it to the EU because she knew it was unlikely to be found acceptable by Westminster factions but she knew she could get agreement with the EU on it. This was despite the fact that she knew she had to come back to Westminster to have it ratified. Her strategy seems to have been to present Parliament with a 'fait accompli' then blame everyone else for not agreeing a deal. This was even though she knew her deal would not be agreeable to anyone.

I don't think Theresa May can be blamed for leaping at the opportunity to be prime minister. However, her almost total lack of a sense of duty that should come with the role has been startling. At every turn she seems to have opted to try and secure her position rather than secure the nation's best interests. Her initial cabinet appointments were designed to curry favour with the Brexiteers in the Conservative Party. At the early stage of negotiations with the EU she opted to go for a transitional post exit arrangement rather than embrace the nettle of actually negotiating new trade tariffs with EU. Even if she had agreed some indicative interim tariffs at that time it might have provided some reassurance to the public and economy about what to expect. Instead, she was swayed by the Business sector to go for a transitional period and remain in the Custom Union. She hadn't factored in the issue of what would happen to border arrangements in Ireland after the end of the transitional period.

Had Mrs May paused to think about the need to make some tough choices it might have occurred to her that the Republic of Ireland needed to maintain the trading status quo even more than the UK did. That is something she could have used as leverage in the negotiations rather than falling to her knees leopard skin pumps in hand begging for a transition period. By restricting her own options May allowed the Republic of Ireland to secure a veto when in fact it should have been pleading for a reasonable compromise.

At this point the British Government has run out of both ideas and time to negotiate an acceptable withdrawal from the EU. Theresa May has to take a huge part of the responsibility for that. Not only did she make a lot of wrong choices but she also appointed a lot of incompetent and uncommitted ministers. For a woman who has been the consummate political operator it appears that Theresa May’s political capital has finally run out. Unfortunately neither the nation nor history will judge her kindly and that is the tragic legacy of her long and dogged political career.

London Policing Twenty Years on from the Macpherson Report

It has been twenty years since the Macpherson Report into the London Metropolitan Police handling of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. Doreen Lawrence, Stephen's mother' has suggested that gains in the aftermath of the Macpherson Inquiry report have not been built upon. However, Cressida Dick, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, claims that the Met has made great progress and come a long way.

Since the Macpherson Inquiry there has been the Tottenham Riots in 2011 following the police shooting to death of Mark Duggan. The riots subsequently spread to the rest of London and nationwide. There was the shooting of Azelle Rodney in 2005. Rodney was shot to death by a police marksman while in a car with two associates. An inquiry later found the shooting unlawful. There was the shooting to death of John Charles de Menezes in 2005 following the July 7 terror attack. He was shot in a case of mistaken identity and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was later found guilty and fined for a failure of duty of care. In 2008 Sean Rigg died in police custody as a result of being restrained by police officers. Olaseni Lewis died on a mental health ward following prolonged restraint by police officers. Dalian Atkinson, an ex England international footballer, died in 2016 after being tasered by police officers whilst in mental health crisis. In 2017 Edson da Costa died after he subdued by CS gas following a car stop by police. In 2017 Rashan Charles died after being restrained by a police officer who suspected him of swallowing a contraband substance.

In 2017/2018 twenty three people died in police custody or following police interventions. This was the highest figure recorded in ten years.

In the consideration of where the Metropolitan Police is twenty years after Macpherson there has been a lot of talk about how much the proportion of officers from minority ethnic groups has increased (from 3% to 14%). There has also been mention of race awareness and community engagement training being carried out. The suggestion is that it is now a different police force. However, is it a better police force in regards to its strategic approach to police minorities, or managing minority police officers?

It is possible that structures and image awareness in the Met has changed but have attitudes moved on all that much? People from minority groups are still having negative experiences of policing in London on a daily basis. And a lot of police officers still see Black people as threatening, and likely to offend. Senior police officers are less likely to show any confidence or offer insightful guidance when dealing with cases involving people from minority ethnic groups. It is unclear whether the progression of minority ethnic officers in the force has significantly improved; or whether minority ethnic officers generally feel well supported, free from prejudice, and empowered in their jobs.

While some things have changed since Macpherson it is clear that the Metropolitan Police really cannot beat its chest about how well it has done in managing issues of race in minority ethnic communities or police officers. There is in no doubt that it could do more and do better. The real issue is how much does the Met itself know that that is the case.

Labour Party's Halfway Housing Hokum

One thing Karl Marx made clear was that first principles don't add up to much if they are not backed by a sound working theory. Jeremy Corbyn is very quick to flaunt his socialist credentials but it has become clear that he has no idea of what a coherent theory of socialism for the 21st century should be. He doesn't seem able to define the role of a socialist government in relation to public services, economic production or social welfare. The Labour Party's new housing proposals seem to be another example of him lacking the rigour to define a fair and responsible approach without alarming a section of the electorate.

Labour's new housing policy proposes more action against 'rogue landlords', more new builds including social provision and reversing housing welfare reforms. These sound appealing but are mostly populist attempts to sway voters rather than a genuine effort to reform housing policy. Focus mostly on building more homes for sale will further the ambitions of the middle class and increase urban purge of poorer working class groups. There's no mention of support for sustainable housing.

A genuine socialist housing policy would come up with rent control proposals for inner city and urban areas, scrapping of right to buy policy and targeting help to buy solely at essential staff. That way low income and young people have improved access to affordable rental accommodation in accessible areas. It will also ensure that social housing is targeted at those most in need. This will provide an opportunity to reform council housing allocation policy.

While these Labour proposals will do some good; yet again Corbyn sacrifices coherence for convenience. Housing requires both policy reform and attitudinal change. A cohesive policy that will change things for the better for the most people over the longest time is what is needed. The Labour Party's proposals offer little more than more of the same.

Carry on Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn appears to be failing both as the leader of the Labour Party and the leader of the opposition. He has alienated most of Labour's parliamentary party and still seems unable, reluctant even, to develop an effective working relationship with them. When he was voted leader of the Labour Party the hope was that he would rescue the party from the centrist reactionary mode it was stuck in. Maybe he would bring a more person friendly and compassionate approach to policy making. Unfortunately it appears he is stuck in a past of grandstanding soap box politics where people make loud speeches and promise to give power back to the people. Unfortunately, in this day and age what people want are wealth and security. Neither of which Corbyn has a plan for.

There are major concerns about how the UK government is handling the process of exiting the European Union. However Corbyn seems determined to do all he can to ensure that Article 50 is triggered as quickly as possible. He hasn't come up with any proposals for dealing with quitting the single market or handling the ending of free movement agreements. Two issues that are fundamental to the future wealth and welfare of Britain. It's almost as if he's expecting Brexit to lead to a revolution which will end in the people rising up and overthrowing the government. Given that Corbyn's ideas have not been revolutionary, or even evolutionary, it is highly unlikely that he will be at the forefront of that revolution should it materialise.

It could be said that inexperience and constant talk of leadership challenges have undermined and impeded Corbyn's tenure. He however has repeatedly gone rogue with statements not in line with Labour Party policy and clearly not discussed with beforehand with his cabinet or MPs. He has failed to adequately engage with influential groups in the Labour Party and put forward an effective front as opposition. This has also meant that the Labour Party has not successfully presented itself to the public as a government in waiting. In fact, it has not come up with any clear positions on the economy, transportation, health, housing or immigration.

It is unlikely that the Labour Party can win a future election under Corbyn. He could however do a better job of holding the government to account. And maybe developing a policy framework that presents a viable and attractive alternative to the current brand of fascistic conservatism being shoved down our throats at the moment.