RAISE YOUR HACKLES

In his Wednesday 9^th November sketch in the Guardian, John Crace writes about Mr Sunak’s performance during Prime Ministers Question in the House of Commons. On the website, there are also a couple of videos showing clips of the exchanges between Mr Sunak and Mr Starmer, leader of the opposition.  Mr Crace also pointed out that, during their banter Mr Sunak made reference to Jeremy Corbyn:

 

Rishi hurriedly tried to change the subject. Yeahbutnobutyeahbutno. At least the British people trusted the Tories to run the economy. Cue outright laughter as the Labour leader pointed out that it had been the Conservatives who had crashed the economy and that no one in their right mind would bet on them fixing it. Sunak visibly winced. Wishing he could dematerialise. All he could do was mutter “But Jeremy Corbyn”. The third week he’d done that and a sure sign he was completely out of ideas. Maybe Corbyn does live rent-free in Sunak’s head.

 

I find it rather sad that a session of Parliament is devoted each week to this rather pointless exercise in politicians trying to score public school debating points off each other, or making ridiculous promotional statements beginning with “Does the Prime Minister agree with me…”

 

I, a rather naïve immigrant to the United Kingdom, was led to believe, when it was first explained to me, that Prime Minister’s Questions were expressly to hold the Government to account to the British Public. It was to enable elected representatives to enquire how the government was progressing with problems arising concerning their constituents. It was meant to be a forum enabling the public to keep the government in check and relevant to all local communities.  I have found, over the years, that it has very little to do with that, although on very rare occasions it does actually produce a specific question which receives a specific and edifying answer. These are normally questions submitted in advance and in writing; however, on the whole it is the scoring points public school and university club debating session. This includes the barracking and braying behind the various thrusts.

 

What is even sadder is that the one person who tried to change the session and bring it back to what it was intended to be, was Jeremy Corbyn. He had actually invited his constituents and the general public to send him question he could put to the prime minister on their behalf. It was a genuine attempt at democratic communication between the electorate and government. He was of course treated as a feeble fool, derided and shouted down. That was over a decade ago. So why bring him up at all in today’s political debate?

 

For some reason, it is brought up like some sort of slur against anyone who might have given him support. Jeremy Corbyn was never leader of a government. He never had his policies or ideas tested in government. He had no influence on anything the labour government did whilst in power before the conservative party took hold of government twelve years ago. He has not ever been a prime minister. So what is the problem? Why is he demonised? He has never demonstrated anything but the highest integrity. You may not like his views or approach to certain political points of view, but he has always tried to explain and clarify his opinion in clam and rational thought. This makes him seem feeble except to those thousands of young people who actually listened to what he had to say and supported him for labour party leader. They did not shut him out as so many in the parliamentary labour party, and many local constituency labour party members, did.

 

Nothing Jeremy Corbyn has done has ever caused harm to the country, has ever brought about austerity, has ever crashed the economy, has ever brought about raging inflation and crises in energy or for that matter and any crisis at all. He has always stood up for peace and human rights for every individual. His message has always been in support of the underprivileged and the underrepresented. He has not been popular in some of the causes he has supported, but he has always been clear about why he supports a particular cause. That clarity of course depends on whether one actually listens to what he says as opposed to dismissing it out of hand, which is the usual reaction of his detractors. His language is reasonably clear, so why is he understood by so few? Why does he appeal to a younger ear? I find it difficult to explain or understand.

 

Many will of course disagree with my view. but why the conservative front bench should keep referencing ‘…but Jeremy Corbyn’ is a complete mystery. But Jeremy Corbyn what? You fucking supported Boris Johnson!

 

It is of course useless and unhelpful to go back over stuff we should have got over by now, but if does make the hackles rise. Hackles by the way are the hairs on the back of an animal’s neck or the feathers on the necks of cockerels. They visibly rise up when the creature becomes excited or aggressive. When the expression to raise one’s hackles came into use is debateable. Perhaps it should be discussed during Prime Minister’s Questions. It is certainly something that one sees constantly happening during the course of that half hour, so why not bring it up?

 

It is most certainly applicable to the current state of affairs in the United States. Katie Hobbs is still narrowly ahead of Kari Lake in the race for Governor of Arizona. I would very much rejoice if Kari Lake loses.  She will of course demand a recount. It is something that is likely to run for several weeks. She will behave like her mentor Mr Trump. On the other hand should she scrape in, it will be a terrible blow for Arizona and my hackles will rise is despair.

 

The democrats have to some degree maintained a semblance of form, but it is a tragedy that so many people have seen fit to put the congress in the hands of a populist and repressive group of people whose only desire is to prevent progress in the United States and minimise Government to enable the mob to once again rule the country. It is a return of the wild west, only this time with armour piercing automatic weaponry. They will only succeed in Making America Gross Again and Putin will continue to run roughshod around the Ukraine. It is no time to look to the heavens and intone “Forgive them Lord…” because they know exactly what they are doing.

 

Governor Ron DeSantis made things very clear in his speech railing against woke people and woke ideology of all kinds. Woke is defined by the American Free Dictionary as a slang adjective meaning “aware of the injustice of the social system in which one lives” "The phenomenon of being woke is a cultural push to challenge problematic norms, systemic injustices and the overall status quo through complete awareness" (Raven Cras).

 

What is wrong with trying to eliminate injustice in society? So Mr DeSantis’s call is to negate the desire to eliminate injustice in society. He declaims it loudly and publicly and is roundly praised for upholding injustice. What does that say about this Republican champion?  It should be noted that chain gangs are once again used in Florida as well as Arizona., Does this seem like progress?

The degree of injustice still existing in the United States is probably no different from that in the United Kingdom. Woke, BLM and a variety of terms and groups have proliferated round the world. One aspect revealed by the current report on Policing in the United Kingdom has shown shortcomings that have gone on for far too long. Massive reorganisation is required to re-establish trust between the police force and the public.  Injustice and discrimination of all kinds need to be addressed and not dismissed. That a politician, purporting to present himself as a viable candidate for the position of President of the United States, should loudly and proudly proclaim his disdain for awareness of injustice, is, in my view, a rather dangerous proposition. Even the arch bully in the playground Donald Trump warns that he will reveal things about Mr DeSantis that will cut him down, should he dare to attempt to usurp his position as top dog. One is just as nasty as the other. 

 

 

What future is in store for us all is decidedly continually in the balance. Qatar, which has a hopeless human rights record, a community primitive in the extreme, has been chosen to host the World Cup. This has now been recognised as a mistake, but one that it is too late to rectify. There is strife and war in Africa and in Middle Europe which will likely go on for some time. There are nationalist governments forming round the globe in an attempt to re-erect barriers that one thought had long been dispensed with. Political divisions are once again verging on serious violence. Has the increased heat gone to everyone’s head? Even the recognition of impending climate catastrophe is causing anger and violence amongst a group of middle class people who would normally just march through the streets with their children in push chairs, holding up banners. Their hackles have been raised and they are gluing themselves to roads, museum walls and artworks of distinction.

 

Climate change is not just an environmental catastrophe but appears to have affected all of society as well, in ways that were not at all expected. A lurch towards conservative repression and isolation is hardly an answer, and in fact exceedingly detrimental to dealing with the problem. The Secretary-General to the United Nations, António Guterres, may preach all he likes, but in the face of the current trend, he might just as well glue himself to his podium for all the effect his words have had.  Clearly what goes on at COP27 stays at COP27. Why else would Boris Johnson be there.   

 

So, if you catch a rooster puffing out the feathers round its neck, take heed, you might be in for a rough time. Of course you can always wring its neck, pluck its feathers and put it in a pot with lots of nice wine, a bouquet garni, a few shallots, leeks, carrots, mushrooms and baby potatoes, let it simmer for a couple of hours, open another nice bottle of wine and settle down to a nice lunch.  The wine will help soften the blow of the extra cost for the energy used during the two hours cooking time.  Bon appetite.