Is Mr Cartlidge, MP for the South Suffolk Constituency , a reasonable, honourable and courageous Member of Parliament?

Letter published in the Suffolk Free Press a couple of weeks ago:

Dear Editor

In the face of Johnson’s unconstitutional suspension of Parliament at a time of national crisis how can we evaluate the response of our local MP, Mr Cartlidge?  How reasonable, honourable and courageous is his stance?

1.  Is he a reasonable man?  Synonyms: sensible, rational, open to reason, full of common sense, logical, fair, fair-minded, just, equitable, decent.  On the basis of his recent ‘round robin’ letter to concerned constituents we must answer YES.  All his letters show he is a sensitive and communicative man who can certainly be classed as a “good local MP”.  He has approached the arguments with regard to prorogation in a balanced way weighing up the pros and cons very ably.  However, his conclusion is faulty.  He fails to acknowledge the constitutional reality that a referendum can only be consultative with parliament delegating to itself how the result should be put into effect.  That the PM’s actions are constitutionally outrageous are beyond doubt.

2.  Is he an honourable man?  Synonyms: honest, moral, ethical, principled, right-minded, full of integrity. The answer must be YES but with reservations.  Since the “expenses scandal”, the provocateurs concentrated in the rabid right-wing press that makes up over 85% of our national newspapers, have labelled MPs as corrupt, entitled people who should be paid as little as possible.  Now, with the Brexit crisis they have had a field day in bullying MPs who are faced with an impossible job.  It needs to be stressed that MPs are not delegates but representatives bring their own informed opinions to the debate.  Mr Cartlidge’s problem is that, like all the Suffolk MPs he started off supporting staying in the EU with all its massive benefits, to a position today where he appears to be entertaining the possibility of a no-deal scenario with unknown consequences on our jobs and living standards.

3.  Is he a courageous man?  Synonyms: brave, fearless, valiant, intrepid, heroic.  The answer must be NO.  Has he like his colleagues, Hancock, Rudd and Javid, been more interested in furthering his own political career?  Is he really going to support the irresponsible chancers that make up the Johnson cabinet?  A courageous man would resign or, at least, vote against this closing of Parliament.  To give him some credit, Mr Cartlidge has many reservations about prorogation but despite his call for compromise, it should not be done by trashing our Parliamentary democracy.  After all it was the Leavers who have made great noise about returning sovereignty to Parliament and now they want to send it packing.

There is no doubt in my mind, that the 2016 Referendum was all about the survival of the Tory Party above all else.  In concluding his ‘round robin’ letter, our MP says that we need to “move on as a nation” and that “we must hold our nerve as a nation”.  When you replace the word “nation” with “Tory Party”, I think we are getting nearer to the truth.

Steve Britt, proto-fascist, talks "poppycock"

Letter to SFP

Dear Editor

Considering his past pronouncements, Mr Britt’s warm welcome (SFP 8 Aug 2019) for Mr Johnson and his cabinet of hard right ideologues, is not surprising.  To emphasize his joy he indulges in the usual ant-EU tropes that he has dished up for the edification of SFP readers many times before: “throw off the shackles”, “cunning elite”, and “unelected bureaucrats”.  All poppycock. 

The EU is no more lacking in democracy than the UK with its unwritten constitution and 'not fit for purpose' voting system.  In general, the EU has been a force for stability and peace over many decades.  Now that the Tory right are in the ascendancy what can we look forward to?  Mr Johnson’s bluster and false promises, recession and massive economic uncertainty?

The cabinet that Mr Britt admires so much all voted for the worst features of a harsh Tory austerity which, it has been estimated, has been responsible for 130,000 ‘preventable’ UK deaths over the last six years.  Furthermore, this month we have been told that 4.5 million people are waiting for NHS operations, while people are having to wait, on average, two weeks to get an appointment.  Is Mr Britt’s vision of a future utopia of free trade and the burning of regulations going to help the ordinary person dependent on a supportive welfare?  No way.

If you want to know what sort of country we have become under Tory austerity, ask a disabled person.  A recent UN report has found that disabled people have been “driven to breaking point” by cuts.  A broken benefits system has seen thousands of people dying after being found “fit for work”. Food banks are full with people battling mental and physical health problems. The threadbare social care system is leaving disabled people trapped in their homes, in some cases waiting 14 hours without access to their toilet.

The solution to these problems is not to be found in the new government’s pre-General Election splurges funded by mysterious “money trees” but in a long term strategy operated by a stable and caring government committed to our state welfare system.

The most effective way to tackle the inequality faced by disabled people is to think about it in the round, looking at issues of housing, employment, social security and social care, and offering a coordinated strategy that is not only morally right but also speaks to common sense. Invest in accessible homes, care packages and benefits, and NHS bills go down and tax revenue up.

Yours sincerely

Christopher Bornett

Thanks to Frances Ryan, The Guardian

James Cartlidge MP adopts the language of Brexiters and UKIP

Dear Mr Cartlidge

Thank you very much for your recent briefing on the Brexit situation.  It is good to read a coherent summary of Tory views when so many of your colleagues are running around like headless chickens.

However, I must take issue with your paragraph beginning “In essence….”, where you seem to have swallowed UKIP hype and jargon ‘hook, line and sinker’.

Let’s take so-called “sovereignty” for fisheries as a starter: 

·         Fishing represents 0.05% of the economy

·         Tariff-free and easy exports for British fish and shellfish are more important to large parts of the British fisheries industry than the right to increased quotas.

·         Britain exports the majority of the fish that it catches and imports most of the fish that it eats. Many of the “fragile” UK coastal communities (including Suffolk’s) that are supposed to benefit from Brexit depend on harvesting shellfish, of which 90% is exported to the continent. We also sell the greatest part of our herring and mackerel to other EU countries.

Then there are your misconceptions and contradictions about migrant labour as a main course:

·         Current research suggests there was a small, negative impact on the wages of low-skilled workers, which was outweighed by other factors such as the impact of the financial crisis and rises in the minimum wage.

·         Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found.  And, over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits - while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero.  Oxford Economics, which carried out the assessment, said this meant the value of EU citizens to the economy was the equivalent of slapping 5p on income tax rates.

For dessert you hope we will swallow your sweet words about the contribution of EU citizens to our health and care systems:

·         63,000 NHS staff in England are EU nationals - 5.6% of all staff

·         Across NHS trusts there is currently a shortage of more than 100,000 staff (representing 1 in 11 posts), severely affecting some key groups of essential staff, including nurses, many types of doctors, allied health professionals, and care staff. Vacancies in adult social care are rising, currently totally 110,000, with around 1 in 10 social worker and 1 in 11 care worker roles unfilled.

I know that you definitely belong to the “Caring Conservative Camp” but your party seems to have been taken over by people like Liam Fox whose use of the word “sovereignty” is highly selective. These people appear to hate much of what others love about this country: the NHS, our public broadcasters, our social safety net, the protection of the countryside, the notion that power resides in the people rather than in corporations and their shadowy lobbyists.

There are malefactors in our midst, who would rip down our most treasured institutions on behalf of sometimes dubious private companies, and transnational organisations (like Huawei, which is ultimately controlled by the Chinese Communist Party!), and frequently anonymous off-shore finance companies.

Is this what you mean by “sovereignty”?  Are we not being duped by the simplistic and populist slogan of “taking back control” disseminated by the likes of Farage.

Yours sincerely

Suffolk Free Press still publishes articles promoting right wing economics

Letter to SFP 6 April 2019

Dear Editor

Whether you agree with him or not, you could never accuse Mr Britt of being boring – that is, until last week (“Vote would not heal issues”).

His rehearsal of the familiar and tendentious anti-EU arguments was both repetitive and tedious.  If he made a visit to the EU Parliament in Brussels he would find a healthy and representative democracy working for the good of the whole of Europe.

Mr Britt’s list of the ‘crocks of gold’ lying at the end of the Brexit rainbow are pure fantasy.  His approach to the economy will result in less trade, less inward investment and less growth, while our capacity to work with other countries to confront common challenges such as climate change and security, will be seriously reduced. 

His trashing of the public sector, the civil service, politicians and constitutional experts generally has all the hall marks of the populist rhetoric now raised to a new art form by the likes of Farage, Trump and the assorted right wing extremists that are beginning to re-assert themselves across the world.

Mr Britt and his fellow right-wingers continually denigrate the popular public welfare institutions such as the NHS that have been established since the 1940s.  Their approach degrades the social values of mutual help and respect that we in Britain hold dear. If we are not careful we will become more inward looking, more intolerant and more mean-spirited in ways that have been well documented in the media since the referendum. 

Many of us detest the free market ideas that Britt endlessly expounds and which has messed up our society since the days of Thatcher. We do not believe in capitalism red in tooth and claw.  We see the case for stakeholder capitalism, for the regulation of finance and for utilising state power to encourage competition and research.  We recognise the role of trade unions and emphasize the importance of worker’s rights.

These are moderate European values that will not be advanced one iota with Brexit.

Currently, the politics of Brexit is wrecking the Conservative party because it has exposed diametrically opposing beliefs: nationalists against internationalists, and modernists against nostalgists.  According to recent reports, more and more MPs are suffering mental health problems.  This is hardly surprising when you realise so many Remain MPs are now being asked to enforce policies that they know in their heart of hearts are wrong.

Staying in the EU is the best solution, but if that is not possible, we must insist on a public vote to endorse any deal that is put on the table.  Crashing out is not an option.  That would be the ultimate betrayal.

Will Hutton on enlightenment values in the UK today

See:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/17/until-brexit-is-a-done-deal-lets-continue-to-resist-our-economy-and-values-at-stake

Let’s continue to resist Brexit. Our economy and values are at stake

The current focus is all about the potential damage to national wealth. But other riches are threatened.

"... Propounding EU membership is thus a civilisational proposition. It does not mean that you regard every aspect of the EU – its unsigned-off accounts or the intricacies of the common agricultural policy – as perfect. But then neither is every aspect of the UK. But it does mean that you sign up for a set of interlocking propositions, shared by other Europeans, which better allow people to live lives they have reason to value...."

Suffolk Free Press and its support for right wing economics

Letter to SFP

Dear Editor

Britt’s battle cry is “Charity”.  But his shrink-the-state-rhetoric (“How to stop state thievery”) is a recipe for social chaos. The Tory’s anarchical policy of keeping taxes low for the rich and pretending that the hit-and-miss efforts of charity can plug the gaps will always hit the majority of citizens hardest.

Giving to charity is obviously of huge social benefit whether people offer money, time or good neighbourliness. But it is no substitute for a well-resourced state system receiving money raised by progressive taxation.  Democratically accountable governments have to justify their priorities and are far more likely to spend according to real social need than mere ad hoc charitable giving.

If you don’t fund state services properly through taxation you end up with a fragile, broken and insecure society.  Take, for example, the government’s austerity policies which have been closely scrutinised recently because of the increase in knife crime. 

A short-fall in police numbers is no doubt an important factor, but if you also drastically reduce funding for youth services and sixth-form education, treat children in the care system badly, turn away hundreds of children a day from mental health services, close schools in some areas early on a Friday because you can’t pay teachers for the full week, routinely reject children who are eligible for special educational needs support because you have no resources, then you are creating a serious social crisis.

One day, hopefully sooner rather than later, the Tories’ economic and social mis-management through ill-conceived tax cuts and tax relief for the rich, will be exposed.

Mr Britt’s mention of Forbes magazine is significant.  This magazine’s raison d’etre is to make the super-rich look generous through philanthropic donations whilst advising them on how to make far more money through exploiting tax loopholes and using tax havens to hide their immense wealth.  The real crime here is ‘tax avoidance thievery’ not ‘state thievery’. The Treasury estimates that about £3 billion is lost through tax avoidance every year.

As a self-styled Brexiteer, Mr Britt should be celebrating that Sir James Dyson paid £127.8 million in taxes last year.  Dyson doesn’t carp on about paying tax because he knows that there’s something deeply positive about the idea that we each pay in tax collectively to support one another and build something greater than we could alone through mere charity.

Yours sincerely

The Tories try to brand Labour's moderate and reasonable proposals as extreme and hard left. Puzzled?

My letter to the EADT published 23 February 2019:

Dear Editor

The Conservative candidate for Ipswich makes wild and unsubstantiated claims about Labour's policies describing them as far-Left, Marxist, etc.

Perhaps he would like to explain how and why he thinks the ten main points from Labour's 2017 manifesto are extreme.  Here they are:

1. Scrap student tuition fees 
2. Nationalisation of England's nine water companies. 
3. Re-introduce the 50p rate of tax on the highest earners (above £123,000) 
4. Income tax rate 45p on £80,000 and above 
5. More free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds 
6. Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes 
7. End to zero hours contracts 
8. Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters 
9. Moves to charge companies a levy on salaries above £330,000 
10. Deliver rail electrification "including in Wales and the South West". 

One might quibble about details but all these policies are moderate and reasonable.  It is only because  the Tory Party has moved so far to the right that such obviously middle of the road, social democratic policies, common throughout Europe can be branded as extreme.  

I doubt this Tory candidate has much in common with the three MPs who have just left the Conservative Party because it has been hi-jacked by the far-right in the form of ERG.