Mirror mirror on the wall
Who's the wokest of them all?
The UK Govt & its Ministers are hypocrites when it comes to upholding their own stated "fundamental British values" which they, & swathes of the UK press, ignore & contradict through their policies & rhetoric. 🇬🇧
In 2014, the Govt published its "Guidance on promoting British Values" in schools - values codified in official guidance on "improving the spiritual, moral, social & cultural development of pupils to ensure young people leave school prepared for life in modern Britain."
The official "guidance" compels schools to "actively promote" the "fundamental British values of democracy, *the rule of law*, individual liberty, & *mutual respect & tolerance of those of different faiths & beliefs*", which #Ofsted must take into account during inspections. 🤔
So how does the rhetoric of Govt Ministers, along with swathes of the UK's press & broadcast news media, align with the "fundamental British values" of "mutual respect & tolerance of those of different beliefs"?
SPOILER ALERT: it doesn't.
Does this mean they're anti-British? 🇬🇧
The Govt's plan is "to ensure children become valuable & fully rounded members of society, who TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT & TOLERANCE, regardless of background".
Ministers & right-wing news media do not consider a growing list of 'others' worthy of either respect, or tolerance.
Examples of the understanding & knowledge pupils MUST learn include: "an acceptance that people having DIFFERENT BELIEFS to oneself ("which is protected in law") SHOULD BE ACCEPTED & TOLERATED, & should NOT be the cause of PREJUDICIAL or DISCRIMINATORY behaviour".
Other examples of the understanding & knowledge of "fundamental British values" pupils MUST learn include: "an understanding of the importance of identifying & COMBATTING DISCRIMINATION" - although actively promoting & justifying discrimination appears fine IF you're the UK Govt.
So how does all this fit with 'wokeness'?
It's clear that the Government, the billionaire-owned or funded right-wing news media, including GB "News", & TalkTV are all explicitly 'anti-woke' - but what do *they* actually mean when they mobilise 'woke' & 'wokeness' as pejoratives?
Used as a pejorative, according to the Right 'woke' has THREE main attributes & meanings that they take exception to:
(1) imposed conformity to a particular ideology;
(2) over-sensitivity to particular cultural issues (eg race);
(3) intolerance of opposing ideologies.
Govt Ministers, the right-wing media & others on the right all agree these three components are antithetical to 'free speech' & the "fundamental British values" of "individual liberty, & mutual respect & tolerance of those of different beliefs". Fine. It's a view I'll tolerate.😉
But the Right's OWN intolerant rhetoric conforms PRECISELY to what THEY find objectionable in THEIR understanding of the term 'woke': imposed conformity to a particular ideology; over-sensitivity to particular cultural issues (eg wokeness); & intolerance of opposing ideologies.
But which intolerance came first?
The 'overly sensitive Left', who want to impose conformity to eg tolerating & respecting asylum seekers & minorities?
Or the 'overly sensitive Right', who want to impose conformity to eg demonising & scapegoating asylum seekers & minorities?
We appear to be locked into a very harmful, divisive, & polarising 'intolerance spiral', which is not just antithetical to the Govt's own stated "fundamental British values", but is also threatening the very fabric of society, & democracy itself.
And most MPs don't seem to care.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A #THREAD about John Smith's recognition of the need for unity in @UKLabour.
In an article from May 2014, entitled 'John Smith would have led us to a decent world', John McTernan — Blair’s Director of Political Operations from 2005 to 2007 — wrote:
When John Smith became @UKLabour leader in July 1992. he introduced the ‘one member one vote’ system for electing the Party leader but otherwise wanted to minimise conflict within the Labour Party, which was still smarting from the general election defeat under Kinnock.
John Smith wanted to heal divisions and focus instead on the unpopularity of the Tory Government.
John McTernan stated John Smith and @UKLabour were heading for “certain victory” in the 1997 general election.
A refreshingly candid political analysis. But who is it by?
"The destructive legacy of Thatcherism is typically analysed through an economic lens, namely that free-market dogmatism rewarded corporate greed at the expense of our public services."
"Less focus is paid to another kind of war she had to wage to win this economic battle; by curtailing the rights of trade unionists, disempowering local governments and handing over public resources to unaccountable private companies, Thatcher was waging a war on democracy."
"40 years later, the Conservative government’s anti-democratic assault rages on. The Minimum Service Levels Bill overrides our fundamental right to strike."
As with asylum seekers, & probably due to political rhetoric & sensational news reports, people's understanding of child sex abuse is poor. In England, the number of children on sexual abuse child protection plans reduced between 1993 & 2001, but has stayed fairly constant since.
However, the best evidence suggests that far more children are sexually abused than services identify, with up to 500,000 children being sexually abused, every year.
A 2018 Govt consultation on 'Reporting & acting on child abuse & neglect' found evidence did NOT support the introduction of a mandatory reporting duty, did NOT support the view that a duty to act would improve outcomes for children, & it may well MAKE THINGS WORSE. 🤬
The Tory Government's 2018 'Reporting & acting on child abuse & neglect - Summary of consultation responses & Government action', spells out why calls for mandatory reporting are extremely likely to make matters WORSE, not better, & NOT help the victims.
The improvements most needed were in three key areas: better joint working between different local agencies (93%); further work to encourage new & innovative practice (85%); & better training for practitioners (81%) (and NOT Mandatory reporting).
In signing the Brextremist CPTPP, Britain has ditched environmental standards, signed up to terms that will undermine British farmers, and left us open to being sued by multinational corporations in secretive courts. And all for no real economic benefit.
The government announced that Britain has joined a trade deal so contentious that it united Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in opposition to US membership.
Britain has been forced to lower environmental standards as a condition for entry to the deal.
The whole point of the CPTPP is to get countries to recognise standards as equivalent to each other – and to accept imports even where there are real differences in standards.