cherokoffdotcom

Firstly, I will admit that I haven’t read the whole of Dame Louise Casey’s report on Integration. But I suspect that goes for the vast majority of those who have already pontificated on its ‘conclusions’, so I feel entitled.

Having heard her interviewed this morning regarding the report, I will certainly credit her with appearing to be acting with the best of intentions. Much of what she said seemed to stem from a genuine concern for, mainly female, immigrant community members being isolated from the wider society by language barriers, cultural differences, and religious restrictions.

And that is where the buts begin.

Those isolators have existed ever since the first immigrant arrived on these shores, and that is why, in general, communities develop – safety, support, commonality. First generations always operate on a more closely knit basis than those that they produce.

And for most of those influxes of immigrants – Jewish, Irish, Afro-Caribbean, Asian – the communities have established themselves in various cities, and acceptance has evolved over time. And within those communities, even today, there are sections that restrict and control the access of their members to the outside world.

And, to be fair, they are mentioned – in passing. Because the main emphasis, as is everything these days, is on the various Muslim communities across the UK.

And again, even from the best of intentions, it results in solutions that are far too simplistic.

Yes, there are some areas where the negative aspects – from our perspective – of Sharia Law may treat, mainly women, differently from how we would expect. Yes, there are a number of first generation immigrants who speak little or no English.

But our potential response, based on this report, could be so excessive as to add even more division into a country far from healed after the Brexit debacle and the re-emergence of the ‘immigrant community blame game’.

Help, assist, talk, communicate, listen, accept, understand. All good words that should be signposts for the way forward.

But, swearing an integration oath on arrival in the UK? Really? Teaching ‘British Values’? Really?

If anyone coming into the UK is required to swear an oath of integration, then everyone already here should do the same. If an immigrant is required to swear acceptance of everything we hold to be British, then every British person should swear acceptance of any immigrant.

And what exactly are British Values? Which particular bit of Britain do we want to take as out template for rightness? And from when?

Because there are precious few who could trace their ancestry back too far and still claim Britishness.

And if we are basing it on an accepted moral code, and agreed societal behaviour, then that includes, I assume, acceptance and welcoming of strangers; of appreciating difference, and applauding its enhancement of the whole.

Alternatively, we take the suggestions to their logical conclusions. Which means that the Ashkenazi Jewish Communities, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other non-Muslim groupings will also need to relax their restrictions on behavioural requirements. Good luck with that one!

If immigrant communities are viewed to be inherently regressive as far as integration is concerned, then presumably the same applies to all those other communities that have developed over the years. You know the ones: moneyed, middle class, blinkered, bigoted and white C of E conclaves scattered across the UK, ensuring that life stagnates somewhere in the 1950’s.

This is a polyglot country. An immigrant nation. That should be a matter of celebration, not fear. And on that basis real progress can be made, progress that accepts we can all face in the same direction without all being identical.

Yesterday saw two moments, well one moment and an hour, that has resulted in me as yet not being able to leave the ‘democratic’ Brexit vote alone.

The moment, the perfect outcome for the arrogance of Zac Goldsmith, was his dramatic and emphatic loss in the by-election he created by stamping his feet and sulking about the extension of Heathrow Airport.

Except that the election was high-jacked by candidates who wanted to put Brexit front and centre. And was won by a candidate who has only been in the Liberal Party for 18 months, on an anti-Brexit platform.

The other Brexit moments were on Question Time last night. Held in Wakefield, which voted overwhelmingly – allegedly – to leave the EU, whilst having an extremely small immigrant community, it saw the continual regurgitation of the sound bites used all the way through the referendum campaign.

There seemed to be two main complaints from the Leavers in the audience, and Richard Tice, some sort of business ‘thing’ and co-leader of one of the Leave campaigns.

The first was – to paraphrase – Why is it taking so long? The second – to paraphrase – was Stop calling us stupid for voting to leave.

Unfortunately, if you are going to complain about the second, then maybe you should stop asking the first. Because complaining that it is all taking too long does demonstrate a significant lack of awareness of exactly what is involved.

As to the second complaint, I don’t necessarily think you are stupid, or ignorant, or even intentionally racist.

However, it makes it difficult to see what your real arguments are when all that you produce are the same sound bite baseless statements that were thrown around with abandon during the campaigns.

And that includes dismissing Remoaners – another pointless denigration – as a bunch of over-educated, intellectual liberals who disregard the rest of the country. That would be the areas represented by Nigel Farage, the ex-banker, or Boris Johnson, that real man of the people.

Yes, you have a right to vote whichever way you want. Yes, we also have a right to disagree with you.

Yes, you can criticise those who will not let the matter rest. Yes, we have a right to do so – this is a democracy.

And, until you can tell me how a decision NOT voted for by 63% of the electoral is democratic, and until you can put forward coherent arguments that aren’t just a rehash of campaign slogans, I will continue to see you as – certainly a part of the population that feels ignored – people who have been fooled, conned and misled.

I am sorry if you feel this is in any way patronising, but you make it hard to have a serious discourse without anything but slogans and slurs coming from you.

I am ready to listen whenever you are ready. In the meantime, I will keep up the tirade against it all.

That means you, Labour Party!

I know that, certainly in my own area, and across the country, you have recently been active in presenting an alternative view of the government’s lamentable NHS failures.

And that is good. And it needs to be said. And loudly. But it appears that, unlike myself, the media didn’t get the endless emails.

Yes, I support an alternative approach to the political discourse, and Yes, I am fully behind the Labour Party focusing on those areas of deterioration that the Tories would like us to ignore.

And more than anything, I support any attempt to wrest the agenda setting from the media, but …..

There are some things that cannot be ignored.

We have just witnessed the election of the latest UKIP leader, an anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, and blatant racist.

Now whilst Paul Nuttall would of course deny any such thing – well the racist bit anyway – it is very clear when his rhetoric refers to ‘patriotic’ politics it means just one thing.

Patriotism, the love and support of your country, is an honourable attitude. As long as it isn’t looking to segregate those you don’t consider to be part of your country, and isn’t intent on returning to the isolationist, sectarian and xenophobic lunacy of yesteryear.

Because that way only leads to conflict, hatred, and division.

In his BBC acceptance interview, he was allowed to dribble out the standard sound-bite lies regarding various members of the Shadow Cabinet, including accusing Diane Abbott of hating white people. And none of his lies were questioned.

When given the opportunity to respond, the Labour Party spokesman concentrated with amazing singularity on the need to understand the previous Labour heartland’s concerns regarding immigration.

A lack of denial, a refusal to call out the liars, an inability to stand up for an alternative to the bullshit, it only means one thing. You accept them.

That isn’t unity, or fighting a common enemy. It’s resignation to the background.

It is a sad reflection that the only people speaking out against idiocy are the candidates opposing Zac Goldsmith, by stating they will vote against Article 50.

As for the real opposition?

I am worried. Very Worried. Campaigns are good and valid means of creating visibility within murky places, but sometimes you need to set the agenda.

Sometimes, if you want to win, you have to play the game.

Sorry. I was hoping it would take a bit longer for Mister Angry to re-appear, but after listening to so much total bovine excrement, he is back with a vengeance.

It started yesterday, well before the afternoon’s Autumn Death Nell. Dear old IDS (I’m Ducking Sideways ), you remember him – the resigner on principle because of government attacks on social support provision – pontificating about how the latest statement from the Chancellor was heading in the right direction.

And the major difference? A reduction of 3 pence in the pound from what was being cut from support payments. Oh, and a lower than expected minimum wage.

Turning the vast swathes of people in this country who are struggling into a confectionary acronym is not the best way to live up to those promises made such a short time ago. Calling them ‘JAMs’ really doesn’t help, when many will now not be able to afford any, even Tesco’s own brand!

And yet those at the top emerge, yet again, with no pain, and plenty of gain.

And the excuse? Uncertainty.

Now why would that be? Perchance because your previous twonk of a leader decided that keeping truculent party members happy was more important than the future of the UK, and the lives of ‘ordinary people’.

And, even though you didn’t agree with the choice, you do not have the gumption to deny the undemocratic nature of the course now being followed.

Any other excuses? Yes, an inherited budget deficit.

That would be the one resulting from the measures put in place, approved of by yourselves, to defend the country against the catastrophe of the banking crisis. And fast becoming an embarrassingly old excuse.

But wait. There was good news too. Spending on large-scale infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy. Which is somehow fundamentally different from exactly the same plan proposed by the Labour Party, and described as utter madness by your good selves.

Oh yes, one more thing. The target of moving from deficit to “ain’t we loaded” has been moved. To somewhere just over the horizon. Of Saturn. Or was it Jupiter.

Interesting that repeatedly not achieving a stated target is still not a failure, because it’s still not your fault. But it never dawns in those blinkered and self-serving brains that it may just be the wrong way to do it.

That too many people have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to do so, until ….. whenever.

To go back to an old and ongoing moan, if this is a democratic country, and you believe in democracy, then how about a democracy for all, rather than your blighted vision of a hierarchy and gun-fodder.

A definition of stupidity: to keep doing the same thing, even when it’s repeatedly proved not to work.

Angry is back. What else is there? Inclusivity, common sense, compassion are nowhere to be seen in the corridors of power.

After yesterday, and my standard rant on the lousy state of the democratic imperative, today deserves a re-assessment.

From before first light, the news was all about the upcoming Autumn Statement, the briefings, the guesses, the released headers. And the arguments to and fro, even before an official word has been spoken.

And it will no doubt result in even more wordage in subsequent days, some of them probably mine.

But for once, the One O’clock News on Radio 4 got it right. The first, and most important, and saddest, and most uplifting news story was the guilty verdict in the trial of the person who murdered Jo Cox.

And she was put front and centre, as she should be, and should always be.

If there is ever to be one picture, one representative, in these days and into the future, of what real democracy means, then her life, and the taking of it, is its perfect example.

She was dedicated, driven, and aspirational for the people she represented. But more, she was a wife and mother. A total, rounded, real, extraordinary ordinary person.

She was who she was because of where she came from, and where she wanted to take her home town. She was who she was because of those close to her. She was who she was because of what she saw was wrong, and her drive to put it right.

She was a unique individual. But she is not the only one. There are others out there with the same drive and aspirations, the same commitment to their home, their community, their country.

And xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and the exploitation of people’s fears and isolation, will not stop them and what they represent.

Jo Cox represents everything that can be good within the political discourse, and the narrow sectarian rantings of post-truth buffoons will not silence them, even when they are taken from us far too soon.

And Brendan Cox is the ongoing demonstration of what real, honest and powerful humanity really means.

After dumping a whole swathe of thoughts regarding the positives or negatives that are coming our way, for a while my mind felt a little lighter, less whirling fog. But no clarity yet.

And then, through the haze of a rugby-saturated weekend, and rain-saturated beginning of the week – anyone seen an ark? – the same old doubts, questions and solution-free void re-emerged.

So, here we go again.

I think, first of all, that we need to separate democracy from politics. They are two very distinct, and in many ways, diametrically opposed principles of operation.

Democracy, at its most basic, should be a means of social inclusivity. Everyone involved, everyone considered, everyone accepting. The problems arise when an administrative structure is imposed, along with man’s inherent inability to accept equality of influence.

And then we get politics. If it was the management of the decisions resulting from democratic discourse, then that would be fine. But it isn’t. It is, or has certainly become, a means of certain factions, who assume a superiority, to control, distort and exploit those decisions for their own ends.

And these same factions then export the exploitative structure to other groups, peoples, nations; given factions within each of these the same control – in the name of democracy.

As the ancient Greeks – oft accused as the designers of democracy – would state, and I paraphrase,”Bollocks”.

Within what we consider to be the advanced countries of the world, the closest to the theory of democracy would be Australia, as participation is compulsory. Although the outcomes are no better than any other less involved democracy.

We have, for centuries, had the most advanced, strongest, powerful countries in the world governed, run, exploited by minorities. Democracy, real social inclusivity, disappeared long ago.

And no decision, selection, election in recent times has proved otherwise. I am going to repeat it, Brexit was 37% of the electorate, Hillary Clinton was chosen by more voters than Trump, and we accept it.

Or rather, those in power, who see power as the goal rather than the people they represent, accept it.

And what I am finding more depressing than that is the acceptance by those who should be bellowing loudly and endlessly against it.

From day 1 I have advocated and argued for the ‘alternative approach’ to politics that emerged in the Labour Party. And I still fundamentally agree with the proposition that government should be inclusive, not combative.

But that also should mean that the Labour Party should be front and centre denying and fighting the ‘democracy’ of Brexit, not complaining about the lack of a plan. And they aren’t. And I am saddened.

Because the only reason that I can conclude is that they are playing politics with the people. That their suffering will, at some stage in the future, hand power back.

And that may be politics, but it is not democracy, or not any form of democracy that I recognise.

Every year, the Oxford Dictionary selects a new word of the year. This year it is ‘post-truth’, and it couldn’t be more apt.

Perhaps they should also pick a word that has totally lost its meaning. That would be ‘democracy’. It means nothing, has no relevance, and has been totally lost to the exploitative behaviour of the power brokers.

And the rest of us, the vast majority? Many accept the sound-bites, and concentrate on the more immediate strifes of modern life; many shrug because they feel, rightly, that they can have no influence; a few stare in sadness and disbelief at the arrogance of the ‘democracy’ proclaimers; and shout and swear, and are hardly heard.

Or if they can get their voices above the mundane rumble, are told to stop moaning and get on with it.

No. Because that is not democratic. Is it?

This could be a rambling brain dump, but I got caught up in a discussion on post democracy scenarios last night, and the brain won’t leave it alone.

So, assuming that what has happened in the UK and the US, in what is being framed as the post-truth era, is going to spread across the self-declared democratic countries of the world – what comes next?

History would tell us that, when a vacuum emerges, it has been filled by an autocracy of one form or other, and usually not an overly empathetic one. At best, one section of society prospers at the expense of the rest; at worst, everyone suffers except the power wielding élite.

And they tend to be put into power by those that were most disenfranchised, and who subsequently gain nothing, but end up as fuel for the ensuing régime.

Disruption, isolationist policies, anti-other propaganda  has a free reign. The international agreements that held the EU, NATO, The Commonwealth together, break down and fade into local, regional, tribal sectarianism and self-preservation or aggrandisement.

The arbitrary lines drawn and imposed on the map of the world by those powerful nations on the powerless will disappear, leaving borders to once again be decided by struggle rather than consensus.

There would be natural alliances, and eventually more pragmatic relationships will develop, evolving again into regional groupings, and over time back to where we are now.

Or …..

Assuming, for the moment, that those that have been the gun fodder of the reactionary destructionists will not become the violent armies of the disillusioned when they are let down, yet again; who will fill the void?

Is this perhaps the time that the other side of the argument – the inclusive, the compassionate, the empathetic, the cooperative – emerge as an alternative approach. Whilst I am not convinced that humanity can totally move beyond its self-serving nature, there is, along with the poisonous negative, a surge of a different view, a better perspective.

It is a disparate patchwork of views, of alternatives, of concepts of non-confrontation, and that in itself may be the reason it will never prevail beyond a hopefulness. But maybe ….

One ray of light is also the engine of the disruption. The positivity that emerged in the Arab Spring, short-lived as it was, and the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc were aided by the unstoppable movement of ideas on the web. It has also led to the dishonesty as an element of Brexit and Trump’s election.

But, if it can be maintained as an arena for real truth and alternative cooperation, and not turned to the use of the vacuum-fillers, then perhaps the gentle majority can emerge from the dismantling that is coming.

I am happy if this is dismissed as hippy-shit day dreaming, because at least it means that I aspire towards good. I am sad because history is clear that past vacuums have been filled by negative rather than positive forces.

I look at the young and I hope. I look at the power brokers and I shiver.

Thank heavens for that! It is always comforting to wake in the morning, turn on the news, and hear that we, the UK, are operating within the rules.

Because rules are important. They define and delineate the way society, and societies relationships with other societies, operates.

They maintain the rule of law, the sanctity of international agreements, the status quo of national and cross border hierarchies.

I have to wonder though, where does morality fit into this? What about the right to life? The protection of the innocent?

Four, yes four, of our senior government ministers have stated that the sales of arms, of weapons of extensive destruction, to Saudi Arabia are within the regulatory requirements of the various trade bodies / compliance organisations / blah blah blah.

Good to know. To know that, even though the weapons we have sold, and continue to sell, to Saudi are used in an indiscriminate fashion in Yemen, with no consideration for civilian casualties, that we are complying with the rules.

Except that there are other rules. Simple, straight forward standards of humanity that go far above and beyond the compliance to trade treaties.

When the agreements were drawn up, when they were signed and filed away, the one group not involved, invited, considered in the machinations were the ones who suffer and die as a result.

The only concern that manifested itself in those agreements was the continuation of an industry of death, and goods peddled to those considered of advantage in the great geo-political schemes of the powerful.

And so we continue to justify selling arms to a country which has demonstrated a zero consideration for civilians – never mind a dubious justification for involvement in a conflict in another country – and has clearly demonstrable links to the financing of terrorist organisations.

But hey, never mind, because we are abiding by the rules.

When little rays of light seep through the gloom: Bristol Rugby win their first game of the season; a 1-year-old has no idea why there are so many people around, but relishes every second of her birthday; and those who gather for it prove there are good and caring souls around; for a moment I considered raising my eyes towards the horizon.

And the sight that met me? A toad and an orange. And the lights went out.

I know base and offensive descriptions should be put to one side, after all that was everything that was wrong in the last two meaninglessly meaningful voter excursions. But it is difficult to retain a semblance of profanity-free discourse when leading news outlets look to discuss, with apparent seriousness, the prospect of Nigel Farage being the ‘face’ of the UK in the new era of Trump.

That they are natural bedfellows is not in doubt. They both lie through their teeth, they both instigate violent division and then claim innocence. And they both create mayhem and disorder to pander to their own egos.

And the fact that there has been a categorical denial from No 10 that Farage’s ‘relationship’ could become official, leads me to suspect that it is imminent. Cynical? Moi?

Having decided that Boris bemoaning the ‘whingerama’ surrounding Trump’s election should be ignored because, based on his recent performances he will change his mind in the next day or so, I am rationally, logically, realistically significantly scared about whatever will emerge next.

The positives? Trump is not against same-sex marriage. There are a couple of elements of Healthcare that he likes. The wall might be partially a fence.

However, his Vice President is against just about everything that isn’t clutching a bible, a semi-automatic rifle, and the switch to the electric chair. And based on the indications of who Trump is looking to have in his ‘team’, that will be the ethos on which he has stated that people shouldn’t be afraid, that time will heal.

Now, I know this was not our election, we would never elect a president named after a fart, but this is the most powerful economic and military force in the world. This will impact on everyone, literally. Whether he is in control, or he allows those behind him to run it all, the dynamics of division and despair are front and centre.

And his election has provided a convenient distraction for our own government, you know, the ones who are looking out for the ‘ordinary’ person, to slide through a variety of adjustments to the fundamentals of our daily lives that will leave us with less, again.

It is a very bad joke, and I have lost my sense of humour.

Since the result from the US election emerged, and my initial response of disbelief, despair, and portents of destabilisation, I have tried to take a calmer, more rational, more realistic look at the road we are now heading down.

Well, at least I have tried. But there is nothing.

The modest statements, the respectful comments regarding Obama, the platitudes of united a divided country; they mean nothing. Nothing at all.

And the statements from our own government representatives, to move past the disparaging remarks made about Trump during his campaign, sound just as hollow as his own words.

Whichever way you look at it, the most powerful country in the world has been handed, at best, to the extreme right of the political machine, at worst to an egotistical, racist, misogynist fool.

If he remains as a just a figurehead, a bile-spouting front man for all the potential reversals of any element of progressive policy, then the US will descend even further into a viciously divided country.

If he proceeds to enact even half of the vague and vitriolic proposals that reared their ugly heads on the stump, then the result will be the same, but with potentially even more division.

If you dismiss his pre-vote statements as merely pandering to his core support, then that is an insult to them, and a victory based on blatant falsehoods. If he meant it all, then the result is the same, but your blood runs even colder.

As with Brexit, anything that isn’t ‘us’ is the enemy, is the cause of our woes. As with Brexit, this was the ‘Big Lie’. Both here and in the US the established power bases have been the architects of the suffering and the disenfranchisement. And both in the US and here the power has been given back to them.

Trump’s one truth is that the political system doesn’t work. But you don’t pick a tree surgeon to do a heart transplant. You sure as hell don’t pick an egotist who falsely claims to be a successful businessman to re-establish effective popular representation.

The fact that reactionary and isolationist rhetoric found support on both sides of the Atlantic is the saddest and most worrying aspect of the last few months. And watching as the ripples spread outwards, and waiting for the next quake, makes the daily sunrise the only guarantee for tomorrow.