Mr Gove’s Halloween

Mr Gove wasn’t sure he really liked Halloween.

The idea of ‘trick or treat’ went against the grain: he didn’t really approve of treats.

All these parties seemed frivolous. Pointless. Mr Gove didn’t really like seeing people have fun. Particularly not children.

So when the invitation came to the Cabinet Halloween Party, Mr Gove was a little confused. Unlike some of his colleagues, however, Mr Gove knew about Loyalty, so if Mr Cameron asked him to go to a party, Mr Gove would go to the party.

Mr Gove didn’t really like costumes either, but one of his advisors told him he must, and dressed him up as what he told Mr Gove was a zombie. When one has a job to do, one must make sacrifices, Mr Gove thought. He quite liked sacrifices. Particularly when other people had to make them, like the children that had been sacrificed for his Brilliant Idea of schools without qualified teachers.

The party seemed quite dull to start with, but Mr Gove had to admit that some of the costumes were good. Mr Failinggrayling made an excellent Frankenstein’s monster, looming high over everyone else, and looking down his nose at them. Mr Failinggrayling had always been good at looking down his nose. Mr Gideon didn’t even really need the teeth to get that vampire look. Mr Paterson’s werewolf, with bits of dead badger hanging from his mouth, was just the thing. Only Mrs May seemed to let the side down: her witch with a Rebekah Brooks wig seemed in exceptionally bad taste.

After a little while, Mr Cameron called everyone together.

‘We have a problem,’ Mr Cameron told them all. ‘We’re not scary enough.’

Mr Gove looked around the room. He looked at the vampires, zombies, werewolves, ghosts and witches, and he wondered if, just this once, Mr Cameron might be right. Not that scary at all.

‘I tried to scare those horrible traitors at the Guardian into stopping telling our secrets,’ Mr Cameron went on, ‘but they just ignored me.’

‘You may be right, Mr Cameron,’ whined Mrs May plaintively. ‘My lovely vans only managed to scare a single one of those nasty illegal immigrants into going home.’

Was that what they were supposed to do? Mr Gove wasn’t sure at all. He had thought they were supposed to make other people scared of everyone who even looked like an immigrant – and they seemed to do that job rather well.

‘I did manage to scare those lefties at the BBC,’ Mr Shapps said, or was it Mr Green, or Mr Fox? Mr Gove was never quite sure. Either way, Mr Shapps-Green-Fox was being silly. The BBC was always scared. Everyone knew that. But Mr Shapps-Green-Fox was always silly.

‘I tried to scare those people in Lewisham,’ Mr Hunt moaned, ‘but they weren’t scared enough. They kept on going to court, and they kept on winning.’

‘But,’ piped up Little Mr Clegg, ‘do we really have to be scary? I thought we could be nice to people.’ Mr Gove gave Little Mr Clegg a withering look. Little Mr Clegg sat back down, and looked as though he was about to cry.

‘You see the problem,’ Mr Cameron said. ‘We’re not nearly scary enough. Even Mr Miliband doesn’t seem scared any more. That’s not good.’

And then Mr Quiet rose quietly to his feet. Mr Gove realised that Mr Quiet didn’t have a Halloween costume on – but somehow he was the scariest person in the room.

‘I think,’ said Mr Quiet, in his quiet and dangerous voice, ‘I know how to be scary. I have been working on it for some time. Many people are very scared of me.’

Mr Gove looked around the room again. Mr Quiet was right. Quite a lot of the people in the room seemed to be afraid of Mr Quiet. They must have been. How else would someone as bad at his job as Mr Quiet still be in the cabinet?

‘In fact,’ Mr Quiet went on, in an even quieter voice, ‘I have scared some people so much that they have died.’

For a while there was silence. No-one wanted to speak at all. Not even Mr Shapps-Green-Fox, and it was usually almost impossible to stop him speaking.

Eventually Mr Cameron spoke again. ‘So there you have it. We have less than two years. We must be scarier. Much scarier.

Mr Gove smiled. This was the kind of plan that he liked.

Words by me, art by @kaiserofcrisps

The other stories in the Mr Gove series can be found here:

Mr Gove

Mr Gove goes to War

Mr Quiet

Mr Gove’s Brilliant Idea

Racist or authoritarian?

The new Immigration Bill had its second reading in the House of Commons yesterday – and was passed with almost no resistance. 303 votes in favour, just 18 against. The Labour Party effectively backed the Bill – to the distress of a considerable number of people, including myself.

Why are some of us worried about this Bill? Well, there are lots of reasons to object to it – not least the overall message that it sends, that somehow immigration is a big problem, one that we can pin a huge number of problems onto, from the pretty much bogus claims of ‘health tourism’ to unemployment to strain on schools to somehow blaming the entire economic problems of this country on them. If we have a problem, immigrants are a convenient group to blame – and have been for a long time. Making such a point of an Immigration Bill just adds to this… and Labour supporting this just adds to the feeling that  it’s just ‘truth’.

Your papers please!

That, however, is not what bothers me the most. I’m afraid that battle is one that right now is too hard to fight. The Mail, the Express and UKIP have done their work too well, and Labour, the Lib Dems etc are too scared to oppose it. No, what bothers me most right now is the increasing idea that we need to ‘check’ on people. Doctors need to check people’s immigration status, landlords need to check people’s immigration status, banks need to check people’s immigration status, the DVLA needs to check people’s immigration status etc etc etc…. I can see the argument for some of these – the DVLA it makes the most sense for – but it all adds to an atmosphere where ‘your papers please’ is pretty much the standard answer to any request. That in itself has deep and disturbing implications, implications we should be thinking about.

Racist?

The first question to ask is who will be asked for their papers. Are people asked for papers only when there is a ‘suspicion’ that they might be an illegal immigrant? If so, what could create that suspicion? That they ‘look’ like an illegal immigrant? What does an illegal immigrant look like? Recent activities of the UKBA suggest that they have certain ideas of what illegal immigrants look like – and those ideas have a distinct whiff of racism in them. Or, perhaps that they ‘sound’ like an illegal immigrant? An accent that doesn’t seem ‘local’? The implications of the possibility there will be more checks on people who look or sound ‘foreign’ should worry anyone with any sense of decency – or any knowledge of history.

Authoritarian?

There is an alternative, non-racist alternative: that everyone, no matter what they look like or sound like, should have to prove who they are and their immigration status in pretty much every situation. That wouldn’t be racist – but it would be deeply authoritarian. In the UK we have had a deep resistance to the idea of identity cards for a long, long time. We allowed them in the second war, but after the historic case of Willcock vs Muckle in 1951 we rejected them, and attempts to bring them in since have all failed. Indeed, opposition to the last Labour government’s ID card plan was central to the Coalition government’s plans – and one of their first actions in government was to cancel the programme.

This Immigration Bill, and the strategy in which is plays a part, could well bring about a kind of ‘ID cards by the back door’ plan: if we’re all forced to prove who we are, isn’t an ID card the logical way to do it? They wouldn’t call it an ID card of course – something like an ‘entitlement card’ would sound less offensive…. but the effect, particularly for poorer and more vulnerable people who need to access more services, for people from ethnic minorities who are more likely to be challenged, would be identical. It would be just as authoritarian.

Or a bit of both?

In reality, the impact is likely to be both racist and authoritarian. People who ‘look’ or ‘sound’ foreign will be challenged more often – or simply ignored or refused services, not offered accommodation – and there will be increasing occasions when we all will be required to ‘prove’ who we are.

We should be thinking far more carefully about the implications of bills like this – both in terms of the messages they send out and in terms of their impact in the real world. At the moment we seem to be thinking very narrowly, and on a very short term basis, without seeing the bigger picture. That isn’t good at all.

Mr Gove’s Brilliant Idea!

Mr Gove didn’t like teachers.

Mr Gove had never liked teachers, not since he had been a child himself. His teachers hadn’t liked him. His teachers had always thought they knew more than him. But they hadn’t.

Of course they hadn’t. No-one knew more than Mr Gove. No-one understood things like Mr Gove. Certainly not the teachers.

That was one of the reasons Mr Gove had been so happy when Mr Cameron made him Secretary of State for Education – though of course Mr Gove would have been a far better Prime Minister than Mr Cameron. Because as Secretary of State for Education, Mr Gove could tell the teachers what to do. That would be wonderful, thought Mr Gove.

And it was wonderful. Mr Gove enjoyed telling the teachers what to do.

But it wasn’t quite as wonderful as Mr Gove had hoped. The teachers still wouldn’t always obey him, even though he was Secretary of State for Education. They still argued. They got ‘experts’ to support them – and to argue with Mr Gove’s plans.

That wasn’t good. In fact, it was very bad. The teachers were very bad. It was then, however, that Mr Gove had his Brilliant Idea.

And it was a Brilliant Idea.

A really Brilliant Idea.

Why, thought Mr Gove, why do our schools have to be run by teachers? Teachers are stupid. Teachers don’t listen to me. Teachers don’t know anything. Teachers have spent too much time listening to namby-pamby academics and so-called ‘experts’, and being trained by people who don’t understand the glorious vision I have.

I know lots of clever people, thought Mr Gove. Not as clever as me, of course, but that can hardly be expected. Much cleverer than teachers. Much less namby-pamby. Much less trendy.

Why don’t I get those people to run our schools?

So Mr Gove sent out a proclamation. Anyone who wanted to could come and ask him and then set up a school. Their own school, with their own rules.

Some of those who asked were teachers themselves, but that couldn’t really be helped. Some, though, were the kinds of people Mr Gove really wanted.

First came Mr Toad, Mr Gove’s old friend. Mr Gove wondered for a moment why Mr Toad wanted to set up a school – Mr Gove knew that Mr Toad didn’t like children very much. Mr Toad didn’t even like spending much time with his own children. ‘Pish,’ said Mr Toad, ‘what does it matter whether you like children?’ Mr Gove nodded wisely.

Next came Mr Faith. Mr Gove liked Faith. Hadn’t Mr Gove had his own, specially inscribed Bibles given to every school? Mr Gove did like Mr Faith’s ideas, because Mr Faith didn’t seem to like teachers any more than Mr Gove did. ‘Who needs training,’ Mr Faith told Mr Gove. ‘Our Faith will make our school the best ever.’ Mr Gove nodded wisely.

Then came Little Miss Thinktank. Little Miss Thinktank was very young and had never been a teacher – which was of course a Good Thing – and she thought the right way. And she had some very clever ideas from America. Mr Gove liked America.

All was well for a while. All the preparations for the schools went well. Mr Gove had given them much more freedom than other schools, and plenty of money, so the preparations should have gone well.

So what if some of Mr Gove’s new schools didn’t have very many children. As one of Mr Gove’s teaching idols, Miss Trunchbull, once said, a school would be a much better place with no children at all.

But then things started to go wrong.

First, Little Miss Thinktank  ran away, leaving her school and its children to fend for themselves. It turned out that running a school wasn’t as easy as Little Miss Thinktank had believed. All those clever ideas from America weren’t enough. Never mind, thought Mr Gove.

Then, people started to notice things were going wrong in Mr Faith’s school. In fact, they went very wrong. Mr Faith, some said, treated boys much better than girls. And didn’t train his staff properly. And didn’t check who his staff really were.

It turned out that ‘faith’ wasn’t enough. People started saying once more that schools needed teachers. Properly trained teachers. Teachers that understood education. Teachers. Real teachers.

Even Little Mr Clegg started saying so, and Little Mr Clegg very rarely dared say anything brave.

But was Mr Gove upset? Not at all. Because he still had Mr Toad. So all was still well with the world.

For the original Mr Gove, see here

For Mr Gove goes to War!, see here

For Mr Quiet, see here

Art by @KaiserofCrisps & @paulbernalUK, words by @paulbernalUK

‘Individual privacy vs collective security’? NO!

As reported in the BBC, “Parliament’s intelligence watchdog is to hear evidence from the public as part of a widening of its inquiry into UK spy agencies’ intercept activities.”

Whilst in many ways this is to be welcomed, the piece includes a somewhat alarming but extremely revealing statement from Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee:

“There is a balance to be found between our individual right to privacy and our collective right to security.”

This hits at the heart of the problem – it reveals fundamental misconceptions of the nature and importance of privacy, as well as the impact on society of the kind of universal surveillance that the authorities in the UK, US and elsewhere are undertaking.

Privacy is not just an individual right

Privacy is often misconstrued as a purely individual right – indeed, it is sometimes characterised as an ‘anti-community’ right, a right to hide yourself away from society. Society, in this view, would be better if none of us had any privacy – a ‘transparent society’. In practice, nothing could be further from the truth: privacy is something that has collective benefit, supporting coherent societies. Privacy isn’t so much about ‘hiding’ things as being able to have some sort of control over your life. The more control people have, the more freely and positively they are likely to behave. Most of us realise this when we consider our own lives. We wear clothes, we present ourselves in particular ways, and we behave more positively as a result. We talk more freely with our friends and relations knowing (or assuming) that what we talk about won’t be plastered all over noticeboards, told to all our colleagues, to the police and so forth. Privacy has a crucial social function – it’s not about individuals vs. society. Very much the opposite.

Surveillance doesn’t just impact upon privacy

The idea that surveillance impacts only upon privacy is equally misconceived. Surveillance impacts upon many different aspects of our lives – and how we function in this ‘democratic’ society of ours. In human rights terms, it impacts upon a wide range of those rights that we consider crucial: in particular, as well as privacy it impacts upon freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly, amongst others.

Freedom of expression

The issue of freedom of expression is particularly pertinent. Again, privacy is often misconstrued as somehow an ‘enemy’ of freedom of expression – Guido Fawkes, for example, suggested that ‘privacy is a euphemism for censorship’. He had a point in one particularly narrow context – the way that privacy law has been used by certain celebrities and politicians to attempt to prevent certain stories from being published – but it misses the much wider meaning and importance of privacy.

Without privacy, speech can be chilled. The Nightjack saga is one case in point – because the Nightjack blogger was unable to keep his name private, he had to stop providing an excellent ‘insider’ blog. In Mexico, at least four bloggers writing about the drugs cartels have not just been prevented from blogging – they’ve been sought out, located, and brutally murdered. There are many others for whom privacy is crucial – from whistleblowers to victims of spousal abuse. The internet has given them hitherto unparalleled opportunities to have their voices heard – internet surveillance can take that away. Even the possibility of  being located can be enough to silence them.

Internet surveillance not only impacts upon the ability to speak, it impacts upon the ability to receive information – the crucial second part to freedom of speech. If people know that which websites they visit will be tracked and observed, they’re much more likely to avoid seeking out information that the authorities or others might deem ‘inappropriate’ or ‘untrustworthy’. That, potentially, is a huge chilling effect. It should not be a surprise that the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, sees the link between privacy and freedom of expression as direct and crucial.

“States cannot ensure that individuals are able to freely seek and receive information or express themselves without respecting, protecting and promoting their right to privacy. Privacy and freedom of expression are interlinked and mutually dependent; and infringement upon one can be both the cause and consequence of an infringement upon the other.”

Freedom of association and assembly

Freedom of association and assembly is equally at risk from surveillance. The internet offers unparalleled opportunities for groups to gather and work together – not just working online, but organising and coordinating assembly and association offline. The role the net played in the Arab Spring has almost certainly been exaggerated – but it did play a part, and it continues to be crucial for many activists, protestors and so forth. The authorities realise this, and also that through surveillance they can counter it. A headline from a few months ago in the UK, “Whitehall chiefs scan Twitter to head off badger protests” should have rung the alarm bells – is ‘heading off’ a protest an appropriate use of surveillance? It is certainly a practical one – and with the addition of things like geo-location data the opportunities for surveillance to block association and assembly both offline and online is one that needs serious consideration.

A serious debate

All this matters. It isn’t a question of ‘quaint’ and ‘individual’ privacy, a kind of luxury in today’s dangerous world, being balanced against the heavy, important and deadly-serious issue of security. If expressed in those misleading terms it is easy to see which direction the balance will go. Privacy matters far more than that – and it matters not just to individuals but to society as a whole. It underpins many of our most fundamental and hard-won freedoms – the civil rights that have been something we, as members of liberal and democratic societies have been most proud of.

Security matters – of course it does – but even the suggestion that this kind of surveillance improves our security should be taken with a distinct pinch of salt. The evidence put forward to suggest that it works has been sketchy at best, and in many cases quickly and easily debunked when put forward. Much more has to be done to persuade people that this kind of surveillance is actually necessary. The evidential bar should be very high – because the impact of this surveillance can be very significant.

Dear Rachel Reeves….

Dear Rachel Reeves

Having read the interview with you in the Guardian, I find myself compelled to write a response. I don’t usually do things like this – but I had been feeling so much more positive about Labour since the party conference, and in one fell swoop you’ve destroyed that positivity, and left me with a very sour taste in my mouth. I believe – particularly from the reception the article has found on Twitter – that I am far from alone in that reaction. I do wonder whether you understand why.

The message matters

As a politician I know you’re aware that the overall message signalled by speeches and interviews matters – often even more than the specific policies. Here, where dealing with social security, that is particularly important. So what message are you trying to send out here? I realise of course that you’re not responsible for the headlines chosen by the Guardian, so you may not have actually ‘promised‘ that ‘Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits‘, but the ‘toughness’ is still the main theme of the interview. I’d like to ask why. By suggesting that ‘toughness’ is the key, you’re buying into the whole idea that what’s needed is more of a crackdown – and by implication that people on benefits are only doing so because they’re lazy, they’re spongers, they’re scroungers. That’s not only untrue – remember, for example, that most people on benefits are in work – but it’s deeply and depressingly damaging.

You seem to have bought right into the ‘scrounger vs striver’ rhetoric that may well be the worst thing about this hideous coalition government that you’re supposed to be opposing. It not only does its best to divide communities, to pit people against their neighbour, but it distracts from the real issues. It makes it look as though poor people, vulnerable people – including people with disabilities – are responsible for the mess we find ourselves in. It lets the real culprits off the hook – and at a moment when those real culprits, the bankers and their friends, are making a fresh killing over the sale of the Royal Mail, that kind of distraction is hideously unhelpful.

The departure of Liam Byrne

As I’m sure you will also have noticed, the departure of your predecessor, Liam Byrne MP, from the shadow DWP position, was largely greeted by Labour supporters with pleasure. It was seen as a step forward, something to inspire hope. Very few of those of us who instinctively support the Labour Party believed the rumours suggested in the press that he had to go because Len McCluskey said so – we thought, perhaps foolishly, that his departure meant that the leadership had been listening to the grassroots, had been paying attention to the reactions on the doorstep, and had made the decision on that appropriate basis.

The question I would have thought you would have asked yourself – I would hope that you asked yourself – is why it is that people were happy that Liam Byrne was leaving. Did you imagine it was because people didn’t like Liam personally? That they didn’t like what he looked like, his accent, his style of public speaking, the fact that he was a man? I don’t know many people who support Labour who are quite that shallow – what we disliked about Liam Byrne, why we were happy to see him leaving, was the kind of policies that he was putting forward, and the overall message. Why, then, do you imagine we would be happy to see the same policies, the same overall message, just put by a new face, in a more superficially appealing form?

People with disabilities

For me, the worst thing of all about this government has been its shameful treatment of people with disabilities. From the nightmare of the Bedroom tax to the viciousness of the WCA, to the closure of Remploy, there has been an unparalleled attack on people who we should be supporting, doing everything we can to help. The work of the DWP has been central to that attack – and yet in your first interview you seem to have said nothing about them at all. Indeed, by accepting the ‘scrounger vs striver’ agenda, you seem to be effectively saying that pretty much everything (with the exception of the Bedroom Tax, which I will write more about below) that they have done is OK, and indeed that you’ll be ‘even tougher’. That, to be frank, is entirely shameful. It’s a part of the Coalition agenda that should be challenged at every opportunity.

Myth-busting

You say in your piece that you want to ‘explode’ the ‘myth’ that Labour is soft on benefits. How about exploding some other, far more pernicious myths? The myth that benefit fraud is a significant problem. The myth that there are huge numbers of people who ‘choose’ the benefit ‘lifestyle’ – ‘linger’ on benefits, in your words. The myth that people with disabilities are ‘faking’ it. The myth that our benefit system is more generous than most of those in Europe.  There are huge numbers of similar myths – and you don’t seem to even want to acknowledge them, let alone challenge them!

A rare chance

This is a rare chance for you – I do hope you haven’t already thrown it away. Ed Miliband’s speech at conference was very well received, and seemed to pretty seriously rattle the Tories. They, in response, revealed some of their nastiest aspects at their conference. The Lib Dems are still in chaos. With the departure of Liam Byrne, you had a chance to change the game. It was a chance get onto the front foot, and set the agenda – as Ed Miliband did so well with the energy price freeze policy. Did you notice how well that resonated with people? And how the promise to repeal the Bedroom Tax resonated with people? Did you ask yourself why? One of the key reasons is that it put clear water between Labour and the Tories. It showed that Labour understood peoples’ problems, and actually seemed to care about them. It showed that Labour was no longer going to just be a slightly milder version of the Tories…. or so we thought.

Through your interview, you’ve reversed all that. You may well have lost all the goodwill gained by the Party Conference. I do hope that’s not the case, and I hope you’ll be willing to reconsider your approach. Personally, I live in Cambridge, which is a marginal seat, currently held by the Lib Dems, and I would have thought that you want my vote. Right now, with an approach like this, I don’t think I can give it to you. After Ed Miliband’s speech I was even considering rejoining the Labour Party – after a long gap – and putting a good deal of energy into supporting the campaign. I’d still like to do that, but with an approach like this, I really can’t see a way.

Kind regards

Paul Bernal

A badger moving the goalposts….

A little cartoon for Owen Paterson, who suggested that the reason for the abject failure of the badger cull was that “The badgers moved the goalposts.” (see here)

P.S. I know I’m not a cartoonist! This is my first ever attempt….

Mr Quiet

Mr Quiet was angry.

Quietly angry, because he was A Quiet Man, but very angry.

He was angry that people laughed at him. They shouldn’t laugh at him. He was important. He had once been the Leader.

And now, these two young whippersnappers had taken his place. And they laughed at him. They bullied him. They laughed at him because he was too old. They laughed at him because he didn’t go to the Right School – though he’d been tempted to write that he went to the Right School on his CV. They even said that he wasn’t clever enough. It wasn’t fair!

And who were they? Yes, they went to the Right Schools, and the Right Universities. Yes, they had shiny dark hair. Lots of it. Much more than Mr Quiet. They were like those two young comedians, Dick and Dom, was it? No, Ant and Dec. That was it. And yes, one of them was the Prime Minister, but he shouldn’t have been. Mr Quiet should have been. If Mr Quiet had been leader, they would have won that election, and won it properly.

So Mr Quiet was angry. Seething.

So what could Mr Quiet do? Could he fight back? Could he make people understand how Great he was? It was hard. And yet he did have a way out. He may not have gone to the Right School, but he knew how the Right Schools worked. He understood about Bullying. He knew the Right thing to do when you are bullied.

That’s right. Find someone weaker, so you can be the bully, not the one who is bullied. So Mr Quiet looked around.

Who could he bully? He looked around very carefully, until he found the right people. People who were sick. People who had disabilities. The most vulnerable people he could find.

Mr Quiet smiled. They were perfect. They wouldn’t be able to fight back. They wouldn’t be able to defend themselves. He could blame them for everything. He would be Strong.

He had been humiliated – so he wanted to humiliate someone else in return.

So that’s what Mr Quiet did. Every time something went wrong, he blamed them. Every time he was angry, he found a new way to punish them. He punished them for being sick. He punished them for having disabilities. And he was angry a lot…

He didn’t want them to have places to live that helped them with their disabilities or sickness. So he brought in the Bedroom Tax, so many of them couldn’t afford to stay in their homes. He didn’t mind that it didn’t even save any money, so long as it made him feel strong.

He wanted to humiliate them more, so he asked his friends at ATOS to find a way to test them again and again and again, and belittle the difficulties they have in finding jobs that they can do – and punish them even more. He didn’t mind that the tests were very often wrong. That didn’t matter to Mr Quiet.

He didn’t care that this was so horrible for some of them that they even died. Oh no. That didn’t matter. Just so long as Mr Quiet felt vindicated. Just so long as Mr Quiet felt strong.

But somehow it was never enough. It still isn’t, but he keeps on doing it. He will until he is stopped.

————————-

Art by @KaiserofCrisps, words by @paulbernalUK

Sorry for the darkness…. but there’s little humour to be found in what Mr Quiet is doing. It’s just plain nasty. I would like there to be a happy ending too, but with Mr Quiet in place it’s hard to see.