party politics

Last week, I posted the video above to my Facebook, and in response had a lovely chap I can always rely on to disagree about everything denounce Johann Hari as a liar. A liar? Interesting. I asked for more. I got four articles in response (well, five, but the fifth was about an article Hari had written on Dubai which didn’t make much sense). They were:

* “I’ve Always Wanted to Fisk Johann Hari… ” by Iain Dale, noted Conservative Party blogger, in reference to an article by Hari entitled, “If you’re looking for class war, just read Cameron’s policies“.

* “Johann Hari’s error strewn attack on Hammersmith and Fulham Council” from ConservativeHome, a blog representing grassroots Conservative Party members, in reference to Hari’s article “Welcome to Cameron land“.

* The imaginatively named “Johann Hari is a liar” from the Devil’s Kitchen, a blog written by the leader of the UK’s Libertarian Party, about Hari’s article on wage slavery in China.

* And another, brief article from Devil’s Kitchen, “Oh look, it’s Johann Hari“, attacking an equally brief blogpost from Hari on Richard Littlejohn being racist.

The problem is, and I’m sure you will have guessed this already, these bloggers are all right-wing conservatives with axes to grind, agendas to push, and very little by way of scruples. So although most of Johann Hari’s “lies” are pretty easily verified immediately through a Google search, but that won’t stop people attacking him anyway.

Iain Dale

A cartoon mocking the Tories

Iain Dale, Conservative Party blogger

Take, for example, Iain Dale’s commentary:

(Hari’s comments in red, Dale’s in italics)

He will give a £1.2bn inheritance tax cut to the richest 2 per cent in Britain – with most going to the 3,000 wealthiest estates (including his wife’s).
Wrong. In fact the cut means that ONLY millionaires will pay inheritance tax.

Regardless of the fulminations of the Daily Mail, not that many people actually pay inheritance tax – 12,000 households were eligible under the old system. Under the intended new system, only the 3000 richest households will be eligible, or Iain Dale’s millionaires. But because they are the richest that means that they get the maximum benefit of lifting of the threshold. So a family with a family house worth £345,000 now won’t have to pay inheritance tax at all and therefore benefits by £45,000 – but David Cameron, who is worth £30 million, is now exempted right up to the threshold, and his family will now benefit by £700,000.

So, like Johann Hari said, the richest estates will benefit most from the rise in inheritance tax.

Then he promises to end the 50p top rate of tax, giving another £2.4bn to the richest 1 per cent.
No, he has never promised to do this. He said it would be an aspiration at some point in the future.

The difference between “I promise” meaning “I will” and “I will in the future” is pure semantics that cannot be considered lying. I would also venture to suggest that the likelihood of David Cameron repealing the 50p tax-band, a symbol of the Labour/Brown era which penalises the rich most and derided as “socialism” by the Tories, is considerably closer to 1 than Mr. Dale would like you to believe.

Then he has pledged to cut taxes on the pensions of the richest, handing another £3.2bn to the same 1 per cent.
Has he? This is a new one on me. Source please.

1.6 second Google search later: “ConDems – granting tax £25,000 tax relief to those earning £150,000 a year – the same as the benefit cap

Then his marriage tax relief policies will give 13 times more to the rich than the poor.
No they won’t. The tax relief is targeted at only those with an income of less than £44k. Are people on £44k rich?

Um, yes, yes they are: in the top 15% of earners in the country in fact. The average wage in this country is £23,000 – that means that half the country are earning well under that, and most people in the country will never earn £44k, or indeed even aspire to it. That Iain Dale thinks this is a low income says much about the bubble he lives in.

To pay for this, he will slash programmes for the middle and the skint, like the Child Trust Fund, SureStart and state schools.
Wrong. The CTF will indeed be abolished, but SureStart will not.

Johann Hari states that SureStart will be slashed, not abolished, and he is right: “Sure Start funding frozen for four years


A cartoon mocking the Tories

Polo might not be necessarily upper-class, but the fact you have to own your own horse does make it one of the more expensive sports to play on an estate.

This post was in response to an article by Hari pointing out that Hammersmith and Fulham Council had, among other things, started to charge disabled people on benefits £12.50/h for home care, sold most of the homeless shelters in the borough and changed the housing rules to require people to actively prove they had nowhere else to go, and rented the use of the local park to the World Polo Association, ripping out the running track to allow for polo games once a year. ConservativeHome felt that pointing out these things was “a regurgitation of dishonest Labour press releases”. I am no Labour apologist, but it’s not Labour being dishonest here:

“If Hari feels that Hammersmith and Fulham Home Care charges are wickedly “Thatcherite” what does he feel about the Labour councils which routinely have higher charges?”

I was a bit taken aback by this one. Was ConservativeHome honestly trying to tell me that in an article which starts off by explaining that Hammersmith and Fulham has sold off 12 homeless shelters, and denied a pregnant victim of domestic violence emergency shelter so she had to sleep in a park, their concern is that Johann Hari isn’t making a point of attacking Labour councils who also try to charge the sick and disabled for home care? Call me gullible, but I am quite sure that Hari is happy to attack anyone who tries to make the poor pay charges they can’t afford to. Just the Tories do it more…

“Council Tax hits the poor harder the rich. So contrary to Hari’s claims reducing it helps the poorest the most. His claim that they “disproportionately benefit the wealthy” shows the most staggering ignorance.”

Rich people live in higher band houses than poor people, and consequently pay more of it. Reducing council tax by 3% saves the rich more money, and charging (predominantly poor, working class) people £121 a year more for childcare as a way for paying for that cut is simply robbing the poor to pay the rich.

“Hari’s claim that holding polo in Hurlingham Park has been at the expense of facilities there is the opposite of the truth. The deal with the World Polo Association is bringing in £170,000 in revenue to the Council over three years plus projects to improve the park and the opportunity for children from local primary schools to have free tickets to the tournament and attend sessions to learn polo themselves.”

The polo association may well bring in investment, but I believe the point was that local people now don’t have access to their park for a month of the year or a running track at all, which was one of the few professional running tracks in the country. Given polo requires you to rent or own a horse and running costs nothing, I wonder which sport was benefiting poor kids more….

“The reduction in the number of homeless hostels reflects an achievement in reducing the numbers in temporary accommodation.”

The point regarding homeless shelters is evidently drivel by the fact that homelessness has risen everywhere in the wake of the recession. Reducing the numbers of people in temporary accommodation by making it harder for people to access it is not an “achievement”, its a disgrace.

Basically, this entire article is absolute rubbish.

The Devil’s Kitchen:

Chris Mouncey, leader of the 500 strong Libertarian Party, does not like to mince his words. Indeed, he opens his article with “Just look at this fat, lying little turd. Don’t tell me that you don’t want to punch that face till it bleeds because I simply won’t believe you.” His article is less interested in calling Johann Hari a liar so much as a “posh, cocktail-drinking, Islington-living, Independent-writing shit”. Mouncey seems to be upset, more than anything, about Johann Hari claiming that 35 hour days and 35c/h salaries is an unacceptable way to treat workers. Something which even MSNBC had a problem with:

Devil’s Kitchen definitely prefers flying insults to fact-checking. However, the author does ask for the proof that “After slavery was abolished, GDP fell by 10%”, as Johann Hari asserts here.

I will admit, this is the only fact alleged by Johann Hari that I have not been able to track down a source for. From what I have read, it seems likely that Hari was referring to Gross National Product, rather than Gross Domestic Product, but I have no idea how to check this.

Finally, “Oh look, it’s Johann Hari” contains no factual assertions whatsoever, so I ultimately cannot comment. The point of the article appears to be that the author is upset that Hari points out that 600,000 Chinese workers are worked to death every year – which is true.

All in all, I am not Johann Hari’s biggest fan, but I do respect his work and ability to make arguments on the basis of facts rather than sleight of hand, which is more than I can say for the British right’s luminaries.

Yay, Johann Hari!

Yay, Johann Hari!

Subscribe to via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:


Last Wednesday 100,000 students marched in protest all over the country with absolutely no encouragement from the NUS or any of the usual “student leaders”. That’s AMAZING. I helped to organise the Manchester demo, and we printed out leaflets for 800 – 5000 people turned up to march from every university and college in Manchester to the town hall (via Castlefields, as it turned out). But get this: three hours later, despite the best efforts of the police, 3000 people were still marching back down from the town hall to occupy a university building. Five hours later, 800 were still blocking the road outside MRI when the police charged us with horses (that number by a police sergeant’s reckoning). 800 people were the *remnant* of the demo.

It took nearly 8 hours from the beginning of We Will March Manchester for the police to finally disperse everyone: in the meantime we had blocked Oxford Road for most of that time, held demonstrations outside Castlefields, the town hall, University Place, the John Owens building and MRI, and been attacked by the police three times. For at least six hours of it, everything that happened was largely spontaneous, unplanned, and fuelled by pure anger. No-one, not unions, exec officers, the NUS, the Education Action Network, the National Coalition Against Cuts and Fees, has control over the student movement now. The politicians must be bricking it.

And the NUS has realised it can be with us or against us as well. Here is a video of Aaron Porter, NUS President sitting in the UCL occupation saying that the NUS has been “spineless” about supporting students and apologising for his “dithering”, which is very responsive of him:

The day of the vote on tuition fees is coming closer, and by all accounts, Nick Clegg is starting to have massive, epic kittens about what he is going to do. And who made that happen? We did.

If Nick Clegg votes to raise tuition fees to £9000, he faces losing his seat in the university constituency of Sheffield Hallam. Already students at the university have occupied a lecture theatre and sworn that if he votes for the rise, they will recall him using the legislation that is allegedly coming before parliament next year (though given who it will be used against, I doubt that law will face death by committee, in all likelihood). The protests, demonstrations and occupations can only grow.

If Nick Clegg keep his promise to vote against the tuition fee rise, his constituents will ate him slightly less but David Cameron will be very, very put out. Such a rebellion from a serving minister, let alone the leader of the minor coalition party makes for shakey confidence and a potential breakdown of the government itself. And setting aside the implosion of the government, the urtling downwards trajectory of the markets in the likelihood of such an event, and the annihilation of the Liberal Democrats entirely at the subsequent election, given the amount of effort Clegg has put into trying to convince people that he wants to lift the cap, if he does a second u-turn, he’s also going to look like a total doily.

And finally, Nick Clegg can agree to do what was negotiated for in the Coalition Agreement – he could abstain. His constituents will still be angry, but the current line “we lost the election, we can’t do everything we promised” washes a bit better. The problem is, with the Liberal Democrats abstaining and some Tory MPs planning to vote against the proposals (133 voted against the rise to £3000, and some will again), David Cameron can’t guarantee a majority in the vote, which means loss of confidence, potential destruction of government, drop in markets, annihilation of Liberal Democrats etc. And again, second u-turn = total doily.

So Nick Clegg finds himself in something of an impossible position. I don’t know about you, but I’m quite happy about that. And I am also just a little bit proud that I have done what I can to put him there, along with you and what must now be hundreds of thousands of other people who have written to their MPs, confronted politicians wherever they go, marched, lobbied, broken windows, and made it clear that we are fucking angry. What else should we do with politicians who spent years courting our votes with promises they threw out the window as soon as they saw their ministerial car?

The next national day of action is tomorrow. Tomorrow, the significant thing that happens will be happening. Tomorrow, I will be at 12pm outside University Place in Manchester to march again for my friends’ futures, and I hope that every Manchester student and resident will join us.

Subscribe to via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

{ 1 comment }

The Negative Narrative: A Response to a Liberal Democrat

November 22, 2010

The Liberal Democrat blog Jazz Hands Serious Business recently published a fun article called “The Negative Narrative”, in which the author argued that the Liberal Democrats are currently being unfairly attacked. It seems that he and all his fellow Lib Dems who have kept the faith keep getting attacked by pretty much everyone they know, […]

5 comments Read the full article →

Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

October 28, 2010

This blogpost is the last part of a four part series. I have now devoted some 4000 words to why I have left the Liberal Democrats and how the coalition government is literally a matter of life and death for some people. The response I have had from my decision has been massive, but a […]

9 comments Read the full article →

What’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2

October 25, 2010

This blogpost is the second of a four part series, and the third part will be published tomorrow. Many Liberal Democrats drunken on power seem to be getting all misty-eyed over an AV referendum and the pupil premium and entirely forgetting about things like, say, the cutting of social care for the elderly by 30%. […]

5 comments Read the full article →

Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

October 25, 2010

This blogpost is the first of a four part series, and the second part will be published tomorrow. Further to my rage-fuelled spontaneous combustion last week, I thought I would write a somewhat more thought-out explanation as to why I was planning to leave the Liberal Democrats even before I was so offended by the […]

6 comments Read the full article →