In tents and purposes

Cruella is on the dog whistle again, this time stigmatising homeless people living in tents.

Yes, our caring Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has excelled herself by directing her hateful bile at rough sleepers, claiming it's a "lifestyle choice". And it's not just a matter of vile rhetoric. What rational person could possibly maintain that anyone would actively choose to live in a tent in this country as we go into a long, cold, damp British winter? (You wouldn't voluntarily get me under canvas in this country under any circumstances at any time of year but I realise I've just answered my own question; she isn't rational, she's barking.)

Yet there's method in her madness; she's obviously seeking to bolster her leadership aspirations by appealing to the lowest common denominator of the slavering right in her party and the country. And she has form. She has previously spoken of a "hurricane of migration" and called a pro-Palestinian demonstration on Armistice Day a "hate march". Now she's going after some of the most vulnerable in our society at a time of arguably the most wretched living conditions for our people since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In an opinion piece in the Guardian, Cllr Emily Darlington, housing cabinet lead on Milton Keynes city council writes: "For a start, we didn’t make giving people tents a civil offence [as Braverman has suggested]. Tents are a symptom, not the cause." Cllr Darlington's compassionate policies have almost erradicated rough sleeping in her city. What's Braverman's excuse for a huge increase nationally? Why, blame the victims, of course!

Has she not read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's latest report, Destitution in the UK 2023? That's a rhetorical question by the way because she almost certainly hasn't, and would doubtless deny its findings if she had. For the record, the JRF describes itself as 'an independent organisation working to inspire social change through research, policy and practice' and its research has revealed that 3.8 million British people last year lacked the most basic means of support, one million of whom were children. To claim that where this level of abject poverty and deprivation leads to homelessness it is 'a lifestyle choice' is not only utterly dishonest it's the most pernicious calumny.

But, hey, it suits her purposes.

Update: In an article in The Times Braverman has accused senior police officers of operational bias, stating "senior police officers play favourites". She has also managed to upset Northern Ireland politicians by a crass analogy with sectarian marches in the Province. It has just been confirmed that the article was not signed off by Number 10 before publication. This is gross insubordination. Will Sunak now finally find the balls to sack this poisonous troll before she does even more damage? Talking to The Standard, senior Tory peer, Lord Robert Hayward, said: “He could take the decision any time between now and Thursday but I would be surprised if she was still in position by Thursday."👏👏




Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more