Why has Sunak chosen the 4th of July?

Rishi Sunak just announced we’re finally going to have a general election. He’s chosen the 4th of July to go to the polls. I think early July is important, it was chosen to try and mitigate the damage young voters will cause the Tories. University summer terms run from April through until June. My guess is Sunak and the Tories are hoping students finishing university for the year will go on holiday. They’re gambling on students and recent graduates choosing a holiday over voting in a general election. I for one hope it backfires.

Are they nudging us to war

Anyone who understands how societies are manipulated, nudged towards certain opinions and actions, should be concerned. Two stories in quick succession have me wondering if we’re being primed for a war with Russia.

The first, on Monday, was an Exclusive report by Deborah Haynes on Sky News, revealing “A senior US general has privately told Defence Secretary Ben Wallace the British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force”. Years of cuts have degraded our ability to defend ourselves on the world stage, specifically “the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s Russia”.

Sky News
The Guardian

Direction established, a related story today nudges us ever-so-slightly towards the idea of a war with Russia.

Dan Sabbath reports in The Guardian, the outgoing general of the British army, Sir Patrick Sanders, due to retire in July, has warned the “people of the UK are part of a โ€œprewar generationโ€ who must be prepared to fight a major war against Vladimir Putinโ€™s increasingly aggressive Russia”.

I might be wrong, this could just be a strategy, a distraction, to divert attention away from our failing government, anticipating the imminent general election, but two stories in quick succession, hinting at and nudging us towards war with Russia feels, well prescient?

The solution to poverty, give people money

Iโ€™m convinced the solution to the social ills of our society is a universal basic income, and a peer reviewed study in Canada confirms my instinct.

Vox

The study, conducted by the charity Foundations for Social Change in partnership with the University of British Columbia, gave fifty homeless people in the Vancouver area a lump sum of $7,500 and tracked what they did with the money.

As part of the study researchers also asked eleven-hundred people to predict how the money would be spent. Most thought recipients would waste it on โ€œtemptation goodsโ€ like alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.

They were wrong. Recipients of the cash increased spending on essentials like food, clothes, and rent. They also managed to save money to help with the year ahead.

Ask anyone who is or has been poor and theyโ€™ll confirm what Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman has been saying for years.

Poverty isnโ€™t a lack of character. Itโ€™s a lack of cash.

Rutger Bregman – The Correspondent 2020

For me the Foundations for Social Change study blows to smithereens the right-wing narrative that poverty is a choice, or that poor people are lazy, or โ€œbad at rational decision-making and self-controlโ€.

Poverty isnโ€™t a lifestyle choice, something that can be changed at will, itโ€™s a consequence of our profoundly stratified society. Millions trapped in low wage jobs because they lack the familial wealth to ensure a decent education. Millions more held back because they lack the nepotistic connections to advance. More still hobbled because they reject the ruthless instincts so prized by a society that revels in the binary of winners and losers. And what of those made sick by the toxic conditions of a society that demands participation in the unending grind?

Poverty is a mountain and escaping it is like trying to dig out from under it with a plastic spoon.

As we hurtle towards ecological collapse, the ensuing chaos will hit the poorest hardest. We’re already seeing hundreds of thousands fleeing social and ecological collapse. Also consider the rise in the use of artificial intelligence. Technologies created to remove the need for and cost of workers are not new, but this iteration feels altogether more final. Perhaps because it coincides with environmental collapse. It will make hundreds of millions, billions, surplus to requirements. What happens to all but the few billionaires able to buy a valley in New Zealand with a fresh water supply?

We the poor are not responsible for these problems or advances, but I have no doubt we will be the ones to pay. As things worsen, and without a universal basic income, will we be abandoned on a hillside as carrion?

Divide and conquer

This story on the LBC website piqued my interest. Notwithstanding Charlotte Lynchโ€™s use of the word โ€œluxuryโ€ that seems simultaneously ironic and inflammatory, it seems the government are trying to turn students against refugees.

Headline, โ€œStudents kicked out of 'luxury' accommodation as Home Office takes over block for migrantsโ€.
LBC

Because government policy regarding refugees is a shambles, and thousands of vulnerable individuals are living in hotels waiting to have their cases heard, which apparently isn’t financially sustainable, but don’t mention the ย ยฃ169000 per person the Rwanda policy will cost, the Home office have made the “difficult decision” to take over student accommodation in Huddersfield, forcing students to find “alternative accommodation just weeks before they are due to move in”.

Incompetence or conspiracy the policy lands the same. The government want students, and or their parents, to see this as a consequence of boats arriving in Kent. If these people didn’t come here uninvited, you’d have a place to stay. I really hope students see this for what it is, an attempt to divide and conquer.

Kochland, a warning from history

THE NEW YORKER

Jane Mayer in The New Yorker reviews Christopher Leonard’s book Kochland, a chronicle of โ€œthe extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate changeโ€ in the United States and around the world.

I can’t talk about the book, I haven’t read its seven hundred pages. What I can do is accept what Mayer is saying about Leonard’s findings, and form an opinion, pass judgment, on the brother’s Koch.

I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say, by actively funding climate-change denial, the brother’s Koch put their interests and the profits of their companies above the lives of almost every other person on the planet. It’s a position, an arrogance, as unsettling as the โ€œsmoking gunโ€ revelation surrounding ExxonMobil, reported earlier in the month by Oliver Milman of The Guardian. The Texas oil giant made “โ€˜breathtakinglyโ€™ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s” then systematically denied the science.

The idea anyone could or would deliberately cause harm, actively destroying life on the planet, is so far beyond my comprehension itโ€™s hard for me to fathom.

Actually that’s not true. History is awash with examples of the self-interested, and their abilities to divorce actions from consequences. It’s the logic of faith. I believe in God. I am devout. Therefore everything I do is God’s will.

It’s how everyone from kings to terrorists, moguls to dictators, rationalise their actions.

What’s the super-tipping point for Exxon?

Two stories, from opposite ends of the climate crisis, caught my attention yesterday.

The first by Damian Carrington, details three “super-tipping points” for climate action, that could cascade through our economies, potentially reducing “70% of global greenhouse gas emissions”. The report, from consultancy Systemiq, partnering with the University of Exeter, advocates policy interventions on electric vehicles, plant-based meat alternatives, and green fertilisers, as “the fastest way to drive global action”. Basically, push growth in these three sectors, to get us away from high-carbon options as quickly as possible.

While I think the idea sounds plausible, I wonder if it’s enough? It doesn’t deal with the structural problems that got us here in the first place. The Systemiq strategy was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos. It’s speaking business to business, which has me mulling, will another iteration of business really solve our problems?

The other story, by Oliver Milman, follows up on his piece earlier this month, “Exxon made โ€˜breathtakinglyโ€™ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s“, detailing a report by Geoffrey Supran proving Exxon’s scientist predicted the rise in global temperatures. As I noted then, Exxon has know for at least fifty years their products were, are, and will continue causing planet wide warming.

More than a dozen America states have lawsuits against Exxon. Many believe Supran’s report strengthens their case against the Texas giant. It certainly establishes two key facts. Exxon “knew about the causes and consequences of climate change” and they “actively concealed and denied it”.

Exxon has consistently denied “they knew”. I call that a press-release denial, but they have deep pockets to defend against accusations of wrongdoing. Theoretically they could continue their denials well beyond the point of no return. I’d argue we’re already there. If, as Systemiq predicts, there’s a tipping point when detoxing our economies of carbon achieves critical mass, what’s the super-tipping point for Exxon?

When do they accept their part in all of our destruction, and do something to stop it?

UK bill wants to remove videos of refugees crossing the channel

The UK Governmentโ€™s plan to amend the Online Safety Bill is a truly Orwellian move.

Yesterday Reuters reported Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan wants to amend the Online Safety Bill so they can force platforms โ€œto remove videos that show “in a positive light” migrants arriving in Britain illegally using small boatsโ€.

First, people arriving in boats are refugees not migrants. As the UNHCR 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees states, a refugee is anyone with “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion” who finds themselves “outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”. Until the facts of each case can be investigated, those arriving in boats are refugees. The alternative, where this government is headed, makes us barbaric.

The other thing to understand, despite what the vested interests, who benefit from this distraction, want you to believe, arriving in the UK “illegally” does not stop anyone from claiming asylum. Again read the 1951 Convention for yourself and you’ll see.

What this government are trying to do is remove video evidence of refugees fleeing for their lives, arriving on UK shores in appalling conditions, and in desperate need.

That way they can frame these arrivals as a threat.

Iโ€™d argue, even those propagandist videos, the kind posted by the deeply unpleasant Nigel Farage, would be taken down. If you turn down the sound, remove his stammering thoughtless monologues, you have footage of desperate people risking their lives, crossing open water, in a raft.

This government’s desire to blind people to the truth, hide the evidence, coupled with their ability to silence protest with the recently enacted Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, means we’re headed towards, if not already in, the kind of authoritarian society we condemn elsewhere in the world.

ExxonMobil knew, they knew!

Oliver Milman in The Guardian reports that Exxon has know for at least fifty years that their products were, are, and will continue causing planet wide warming.

The Guardian

Back in the 1970s Exxon’s own scientists “correctly and skilfully” โ€œpredicted there would be global heating of about 0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuelsโ€.

What did Exxon do with this information? Did they tell everyone, try to reverse it, invest in solutions? No, they watched as their prediction came true, then attacked the science.

Geoffrey Supran led the team of researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, that uncovered the โ€œsmoking gunโ€ showing Exxon “accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the science”.

And why would Exxon make such a despicable choice, take such callous actions, for decades? You guessed it, to protect company profits.

They did it for the money!

Stop subsidising private education

Labour wants to end tax breaks for private education, and use the money we save to fund a state school โ€œexcellence programmeโ€.

The Guardian

This isnโ€™t a new idea. Whatโ€™s new is how Labour are framing it. Theyโ€™re putting forward a motion that will force Conservative MPs to make a public choice. They can either vote for a House of Commons select committee to โ€œinvestigate reforming the tax benefits enjoyed by private schoolsโ€ or they vote against it. If they vote it down theyโ€™re telling the British public, your childrenโ€™s futures arenโ€™t worth as much as the privileged few.

โ€œConservative MPs voting against our motion are voting against higher standards in state schools for the majority of children in our country.โ€

Removing charitable status from private schools will be opposed. Back in 2019 The Times ran a propagandist piece bemoaning the โ€œrise of state pupils at Oxbridgeโ€, calling it social engineering, as if private education isnโ€™t already social engineering.

When I wrote about it back then, I included this clip from Question Time.

What it shows, is those who can afford a private education genuinely think theyโ€™re better than everyone else. Don’t you think itโ€™s time they were disabused of that idea?