Beginning to See the Light: The Big Lie

 

Beginning to See the Light: No Blacks, No Immigrants, and the Big Lie

 

‘Mother, mother

There’s too many of you crying

Brother, brother, brother

There’s far too many of you dying’

 

If there is one comment about racism in this country that puts everything in perspective, it dates back to the 2019, when the then head of counter-terrorism and a contender to be the next Metropolitan police commissioner, Neil Basu, said that someone uttering what Boris Johnson had about Muslims and black people would not be allowed in as a police recruit, let alone into the highest office in the land!

It is now 10-years since the riots in Tottenham, which were triggered by the police shooting of Mark Duggan, a local who they believed to be armed. It transpired that a gun was found, but it was some distance away from the ‘gunman’s’ body. Whatever locals and the police claim and counterclaim, the upshot was that much of Tottenham went up in flames, and within days rioting had spread across the whole country.

After such a riot you would have expected the police to understand the importance of keeping close to the community and trying to win their trust. Instead, a decade later relationships between the police and the Black community are as fraught as they have ever been, and several Black men have suffered at the hands of the police in the borough of Haringey since Duggan’s death:

 

• In 2015, Jermaine Baker was fatally shot outside Wood Green crown court. The public inquiry into his death is finally under way and has heard that officers were aware Baker was unarmed.
• A 63-year-old was shot with a Taser in his home while coming out of his disabled son’s bedroom. Officers claimed they were searching for drugs, but none were found.
• May 2020, Jordan Walker Brown was tasered by a Met police officer while on top of a wall. The injuries caused by his fall have left him paralysed from the chest down. The Independent Office for Police Conduct has since referred an officer to the Crown Prosecution Service, to consider bringing charges.
• In June 2020, Andrew Boateng and his 13-year-old son Hugo, cycling on a charity bike ride along the River Lea in Tottenham, were threatened with a Taser and put in handcuffs. Police were looking for a suspect after a stabbing in a local park, but the only information they had was ‘Black men on a bike’.
• Last October, a young Black man died in the same river, in almost the same spot, having been chased by police officers on bikes.
• This week local police have revealed that someone else died following contact with officers who had been called because of concerns for his mental wellbeing.

 

Since the start of the pandemic there has been a rise in incidents. According to the police monitoring group ‘StopWatch’, stop and searches (‘SUS’) in Haringey increased by 110% through April, May and June 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. 80% of these stops resulted in no further action being taken by the police.

The Met no longer pretends that all areas are policed in the same way, instead they try justifying that difference in treatment by claiming they are targeting resources on areas of high crime. This means that boroughs such as Haringey and Hackney, Lewisham, and Lambeth, which have been identified as having a ‘gang’ problem, are policed differently to other boroughs. In these areas anyone who is Black and happens to be passing through the ‘target’ location will be viewed as a suspect.

However, parliaments Home Affairs Committee (‘HAC’) does recognise these issues, a report released last week a report was heavily critical of the progress made in the 22 years since the Macpherson report, which looked into why the white killers of Stephen Lawrence were allowed to go free, which the report blamed on ‘institutional racism.’

The HAC concluded that both the police and governments have done too little to stamp out racial injustice in the ranks, with the failings being systemic and leading to ‘unjustified inequalities’.

The report describes as ‘unjustified inequalities’ the fact that black people remain nine times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched in England and Wales, with most found to be innocent. Black people are more likely to be stopped for drugs but are less likely to use them, the report says.

The committee described as ‘wrong’ a big expansion by the Met in its use of stop and search (‘SUS’) in London during the first months of lockdown in 2020, saying: ‘It should never have been possible for the equivalent of one in four black males between the ages of 15 and 24 in London who were not committing a crime to be stopped and searched during a three-month period. This finding undermines arguments that stop and search was being used judiciously during this time.’

The report notes: ‘Those we heard from in London expressed strong sentiments of anger and frustration towards the police, particularly about the way in which they felt police officers did not treat them fairly or with respect, and also expressed the lack of confidence they had that the police would keep them safe.’

The Met commissioner, Cressida Dick, has been seen by black officers and others in policing as defensive on race, at times in denial. On her watch, as the report details, and under the cover of lockdown, SUS has increased in young black communities, doing much damage and achieving relatively little. The Met was wrong, says the all-party panel of MPs.

 

Macpherson was wrong to say the police force was institutionally racist – the police were just racist!

 

Police leaders responded by accepting the report, saying the slow pace of reform was of ‘deep regret’ and promising real change.

Both the Scarman report which followed the 1981 Brixton riots, and the more recent Macpherson report have fallen on deaf ears. As a former home secretary privately said, Macpherson was wrong to say the police force was institutionally racist – the police were just racist!

However, policing and seeing to be tough on crime, even if it’s poorly targeted, is a key part of this governments’ populist message. It supports the culture warriors belief that they are standing up for a patriotic, socially conservative majority, against a tiny liberal elite that maintains an iron grip on the levers of power.

A good example of this is Nigel Farage’s recent criticism of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (‘RNLI’) for, in his words, providing a ‘taxi service’ to people crossing the Channel in small boats. Not dissimilar to the comments made by Italy’s’, ‘Five Star’ movement with refugee’s fleeing Syria, who called the humanitarian charity ships a taxi del mare, a ‘sea taxi’ service. This led to a government crackdown on these rescues.

Interestingly, other well-known right-wingers including some ministers, did not join in Farage’s attack and were quick to show their support for the RNLI. Perhaps they had learned from the mistakes of colleagues who ended up looking like shameless opportunists during Euro 2020 when they failed to condemn England fans who booed the team for taking the knee at the start of the tournament, and then draped themselves in shirts when the team won. As it turned out they were right to support the RNLI who, after Farage’s comments, received a 3,000% increase in donations.

The promoters of this culture war and their warriors believe the liberal elite is out-of-step with their values and beliefs of the British population. They cannot, or will not, understand the changes in liberal social attitudes, or that the young, who are often denied the career and housing opportunities enjoyed by the ‘baby boomers’ favour a more progressive, socialist approach. They choose to regard this as the product ‘wokeness’, ‘cultural Marxism’, or a biased establishment.

 

‘their warriors believe the liberal elite is out-of-step with their values and beliefs of the British population’

 

These narrow-minded views are supported by an increasingly right-wing media. The Daily Mail included the RNLI in a recent report on ‘migration madness’ in the Channel, together with stories about asylum seekers being accommodated in supposedly plush hotels, with the obvious implication that British people are being short-changed.

The newer the media outlet the more it uses hysterical comments about this great liberal conspiracy.  A good example of this is GB News who, after their ratings flopped, drafted in Farage as a presenter to reverse its fortunes.

For the government culture war politics form the basis of its current electoral coalition.  A coalition based on the support of a disparate group of people with conflicting, even contradictory, interests, bought together by the polarising effect of Brexit, which divided the country between ‘leavers’ and ‘remainers’. This formed the basis of the Conservatives 2019 election victory.

As I have written numerous times before, populism needs constant conflict and targets to keep the warriors focussed. With Brexit ‘done’ the right has been searching for other issues to keep the pot boiling. The problem this brings is the creation of internal tensions within the party and its electorate, as their new voter base in the north, who are keen to see the government ‘levelling up’ through investment in infrastructure, vie with traditional Tories in the south who want a low-tax, low-spending state.

The question is, is Johnson about big government and big spending, or a low-tax / low-spending state small government state a la Thatcher?

 

‘is Johnson about big government and big spending, or a low-tax / low-spending state small government state’

 

The Spectator warn that ‘the big state is back’, the Telegraph fears ‘the rise of big-state Conservatism’. In Downing Street David Frost, taking a break from upsetting the EU warns against ‘the intellectual fallacy’ of a big state.

In the red corner we have Johnson representing Big State, against, in the blue corner, Rishi Sunak representing Small State in this autumn’s spending review.

What has recently become apparent is that casting Thatcher as the person who created small government isn’t correct. Over the 11-years of her premiership neither tax revenues or government spending actually fell.

Her tax cuts were smoke and mirrors; the headlines celebrated her reduction of income-tax rates, especially for top earners, but glossed over the increases in national insurance contributions, and VAT for shoppers. A recent paper in the Cambridge Journal of Economics (CJE) states: ‘The total value of central government receipts was 30.4% of GDP in 1979; by 1990, this proportion had risen to 30.9%.’ Taxes increased under Thatcher with the burden falling on the less well-off, this was effectively the point when the wealth gap took off.

On public spending, in her first 4-years in charge there were few cuts, the most notable being foreign aid, whilst spending on policing and the Falklands War led to an overall increase. As the CJE found, after inflation, ‘total managed expenditure rose by 7.7% from 1979 to 1990’. Even flogging off the ‘family silver’ (BT et al) and shifting their running costs onto the private sector couldn’t stem the rise.

When measured against national income, public spending did fall in the late 1980s, ‘as the economy recovered from the slump at the beginning of the decade. When the economy returned to recession in the early 1990s [under John Major], the ratio again rose.’ ⁽¹⁾.

The result of Thatcherism was a change in whom the state benefitted. The winner were high earners, and finance, the ‘City’ became the UK’s key industry, and the state began using billions of public money to pay the cost. This is still the case today.

 

‘The result of Thatcherism was a change in whom the state benefitted’

 

Of all her privatisations, the one most often overlooked was in public housing, where C. 1.5m council homes were sold at heavily discount prices, costing an estimated £200bn in today’s money. Added to this was the scrapping of rent controls meaning that the cost of housing benefit rose exponentially.

Her much lauded victory over the trade unions drove down wages which meant that taxpayers ended-up subsidising low-paid workers through increased benefits. She also had her own version of universal credit, known as ‘family credit’.

Her policies resulted in the transfer of money and power to those already well-off, creating the start of a rapidly increasing wealth gap.

‘Thatcher’s most notable achievement was how she normalised this, ‘persuading the public to change economic expectations and assumptions’’. ⁽²⁾

It is these expectations and assumptions that drive the current debate over Johnson’s thinking. The warnings about a big state are based on the pretext that it is anti-Thatcherism. Thatcher, along with her chancellor Nigel Lawson created the illusion that income tax rates can never increase. This illusion effectively removed the possibility of proper funding for both the NHS and social care.

It’s yet another Tory version of the tale of the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’. Covid makes it almost inevitable that Johnson will preside over a bigger state than either Thatcher or David Cameron, but he will do so within limits effectively set by her. Johnson will find the funds for his pet projects, benefitting civil engineering firms and property developers, while free school meals and an uplift to universal credit will be deemed ‘unaffordable’.

Overall, as with Thatcher, the state won’t shrink, for many will fare badly while the rich will just get richer.

 

‘The bottom step of the ladder

It keeps getting

Higher and higher

Dawn comes soon enough

For the working class’

 

 

Notes:

1. Source, Jim Tomlinson
2. Source, Ivor Crewe writing after her 1987 election victory

 

Some familiar themes of division and inequality from Philip this week, and the fact that many have been around for so long highlights just how intractable some of them are; ten years ago and large swathes of London burned as ripples from the Tottenham riots spread, yet today anger around stop and search and inequality of treatment seem every bit as raw.

If relations between the police and the black community in particular remain strained, Philip has long posited that a degree of conflict – identifying a common enemy and uniting behind a solution – is a key weapon in a populist government’s armoury; at the moment up to 500 arrivals bobbing across the channel each day serves the dual purpose of allowing people to hate the French as well as the immigrants.

Unfortunately ‘Votey Mc Voteface’ Farage sneaked in on a low tide and got himself a new gig on GB News trying to scupper the RNLI; proving that it really is a funny old world, donations to the Fishermen’s Friends increased by 3,000% and advertisers that supported the new channel face a backlash and boycotts after being targeted by the Stop Funding Hate campaign.

The last part of his column considers Mr Johnson’s dichotomy; should he raise taxes and spending to support the red wall, or be more Thatcherite, and revisit austerity to appease ‘traditional’ Tories. However, he encountered one small problem during his deliberations; overall Mrs T didn’t actually cut taxes or spending, in fact both increased.

What she did was redistribute the burden and the rich began to get even richer and the poor….you’ll get the gist; the highest rate of tax was halved and indirect taxes on spending went up, with the net effect being one of the other staples of this column which is the inequality between the haves and the have nots.

Throw in the fact that the haves are more likely to be ‘boomers’ with younger generations wrestling with uncertain employment, squeezed wages and unaffordable accommodation and that politically and ideologically the generations are poles apart, then there are huge challenges for anybody seeking to heal the rifts.

Maybe its just easier for Boris to poke a Woke, drape a few union flags around and hug a dolphin or two ahead of COP26. 

Two tracks, just for fun – Marvin Gaye with a perfectly reasonable question after fully 50 years – ‘What’s Going On’ and X (me neither) with ‘The Have Nots’. Enjoy!

 

 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: