CPS exists to promote hard-right destructive economic policies that urge the end of public ownership of vital public services and the handover of these services to privateers to provide a steady torrent of unearned income for the latter while the services decline rapidly and their costs rise for both users and for tax payers. CPS is vehemently opposed to the NHS and is fully supportive of tax avoidance for corporations and for the wealthiest.
CPS board includes Fraser Nelson, Niall Ferguson and a member of the notorious tax-dodging Rothermere family.
CPS is very secretive about the identity of its wealthy corporate donors. Its (lack of) transparency on donations was described as “very opaque” in a Transparify report (page 6) in 2017.
All essays published by CPS must support policies and/or views that assist its ideology and methodology. One tactic used by CPS is to publish articles or host speeches that are designed to deflect blame for problems away from the culprits (whom CPS works for) and onto invented targets as a distraction and as a means of division. Shaun Bailey’s essay is an archetypal example of this tactic.
In ‘No Man’s Land’ Bailey trotted out familiar offensive Conservative misdirectional clichés with familiar targets and familiar attempts at division.
He summed up the philosophy in his essay with “the more Liberal we’ve been, the more our communities have suffered. This liberalism is destroying our young people.” So, not a lack of good schools, not a lack of jobs, not a lack of good housing, not institutionalised racism from police, border agency, employers and landlords?
Sounding like a Norman Tebbit clone, Bailey claimed “there is a real culture of dependency [on the state] amongst the people on these estates.” This comment was written in a paper produced by CPS, strident enablers and defenders of multi-million pound tax-dodging, whose aim is to enhance the welfare state for the wealthiest.
He disapproved of people expecting to have the basic human right of somewhere to live: “The real reason it is so bad is because people expect to be housed and expect never to be kicked out.”
Parenting to blame?
In typical Tory fashion Bailey was keen to deposit the blame for any problems that young adults encountered onto their parents. But, this directing of blame by Bailey was aimed only at low-income parents.
“Compare what the well-off expect from their children with what the poor think they can achieve: it is so vastly different that it is unbelievable.”
Clearly, a reasonably wealthy person would assume that their child would have a better start in life and would have a bigger safety net than a non-wealthy person would assume of their child; that is logical economically. It was intrinsically insulting and extremely class prejudiced for Bailey to claim to assume that “poor” people lack enthusiasm, optimism or drive regarding their children’s futures. His comment was straight out of the nineteenth century.
Bailey pretended to be a psychologist: “It [parental discipline] should start from birth. It goes wrong when they have no routine when their child is a baby; then it goes into the young years; and then into the teen years.” Does Bailey look around his Tory party at the venal products of privileged backgrounds and wonder if any of them had the right type of parenting when they were young? Was bad parenting the cause of the relentless lies from Theresa May, Jeremy Hunt, Brandon Lewis, Michael Gove, David Davis, Liam Fox, Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock, Priti Patel and James Cleverley; was it the cause of the racism of Etonians Boris Johnson, Zac Goldsmith and Jacob Rees-Mogg; was it the cause of the carefree Social Murder of Iain Duncan-Smith and Esther McVey?
Single parents have always been a target for Tory attacks. “None of this [discipline among young people] is helped by the lack of married families” declared Bailey before spouting the oft-repeated Tory drivel about single parents being financially better off if unemployed or being more able to find somewhere to live.
“People with our lives, in our circles, understand that you are better off if you are a single parent. It has reached the point where you get a lot of people who are not single parents but who present themselves in that manner because it makes financial sense. If anybody thinks that people like us don’t sit around and have these discussions they are deluding themselves. We soon figure out which way it will make us the most money. And that’s an example of how we are trapped by government policy. Because it discourages us from raising our children in nuclear families.”
A few years later at a CPS event at the 2008 Tory conference Bailey said “gals getting knocked up to get housing? It’s a cottage industry where I come from.” Such a statement from Bailey was exactly what the enemies of public services at the CPS wanted to hear and he obliged obediently .
Never go full Mary Whitehouse
Back in his ‘No Man’s Land’ essay Bailey’s search for other things to blame took him to a list of targets of which the late Mary Whitehouse would have heartily approved;
Hip-hop music: “All they talk about is ‘you’re not the man’ unless you’ve got a gun, a hundred million pounds or are willing to put someone on their back. It’s all about you and you’ll only get as far as what you do. Ragga music is the same.”
Video games and films: “Young people have sex and violence pushed down their necks. It is no surprise that they copy it. It is commercial exploitation. Our children are consuming far more sex and violence than ever before. If you look at the violence in films, the violence in computer games and the violence in music it all adds up.”
Sexual content in magazines and television: “If you look at all the magazines they read they are full of sex, television is full of sex, computer games are full of sex. One of the main things that drives teenage pregnancy is horny young men, young boys. What we have is a creeping liberalisation of the law with regard to the sexual content of TV and magazines. Children have far too much access to porn.”
Full Mary Whitehouse: “Words fail me for how evil and wicked MTV is.”
Bailey’s attacks on teaching in Britain in 2005 were written in the middle of three Labour governments. He was appalled, apparently, by too much liberalism in the classroom.
“School was where young people could have learnt some moral fibre. This is where we are going wrong. Governments have got rid of schools that gave strong moral messages.”
For any Tory to preach morality is gross hypocrisy; for a ‘fellow’ of CPS to do so is even more offensive given the anti-society pro-financial gangsterism ideology of CPS.
“Children in Jamaica and also Malaysian children love school. They see it as their way out, they see it as a good thing. The difference is that schools in those countries have what can only be described as hard moral guidelines. Another is the respect that teachers carry in the community is huge and underlined by the position that the government accords them.”
In the quote above Bailey attacked all British pupils and teachers, and the government. What would he write now after several years of Tory governments have drastically reduced the quality of state education?
The paragraph below is quoted word-for-word as a complete paragraph from Bailey’s essay with no omissions.
“Removing religion and what it is to be British from school has been a disaster. Ethics should be taught in school. Where else are young people going to learn ethics? Citizenship is not enough. It’s trying not to be offensive to anybody. Tough. If they don’t like it, tough. Tough, because that’s how we’ve had bombers here. They’ve come here and have not been exposed to some of the good things about being British.”
So many alarm bells ringing.
Bailey objects to religion being removed from state education – it hadn’t been – but does he mean all religions or just Christianity?
How does not being offensive lead to people bombing?
“They‘ve come here..” They? Who are they?
Bailey answered these questions.
“By removing the religion that British people generally take to [Christianity], by removing the ethics that generally go with it, we’ve allowed people to come to Britain and bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have, with them.”
Tommy Robinson would approve of those comments.
“They [recent immigrants to Britain] are alienated because they haven’t been exposed to the good things in Britain – our ethics. That’s why we’ve now got a nation of people who wouldn’t do anything for the country. They wouldn’t fight for their country. Why would they? The nation has done nothing for them as far as they are concerned. They are not aware of the fact that they have been clothed, educated, housed.”
So, according to Bailey, basic human rights to clothing, education and housing means that the recipients should risk their lives in war.
He mentioned “ethics” in his essay often but he meant “Christian ethics.” He tried to argue that such “ethics” should be imposed on newcomers to Britain by claiming British law is “Christian-based.” Just like extremist evangelicals in the USA, Bailey tried to confuse religious fundamentalism with the law as an excuse to be prejudiced against other religions.
“I can see the argument of taking religion out of the state, out of politics, but as a moral guideline – arguably our laws are Christian-based – well, they need to be maintained. Losing them has meant that people have come here and had very little respect for us. That lack of integration and that lack of saying to people: if you are going to come to England, this is what we expect.”
“You bring your children to school and they learn far more about Diwali than Christmas. I speak to the people who are from Brent and they’ve been having Muslim and Hindi days off. What it does is rob Britain of its community. Without our community we slip into a crime riddled cess pool.”
Bailey mixed up Christianity, ethics, law and community in random combinations in his essay to try to distract the reader but his bigotry shone through with the last comment above.
Bailey admitted that he had been invited to speak at girls’ schools where he talked about abstinence (from sex). No-one from CPS, or any other secretly funded right-wing think-tank, should ever be invited to speak to school pupils.
Who is Shaun Bailey?
‘No Man’s Land’ was written thirteen years ago and discussed Bailey’s work that had happened earlier than that. It is possible he has matured intellectually and morally since then; it is also possible that he hasn’t. Some of the comments in the essay were straight from the Thatcher/Tebbit guidebook, some were closer to EDL/UKIP, some could have been spoken by Mary Whitehouse and some would have been applauded by Mike Pence and Sarah Palin.
Bailey’s essay was pessimistic and negative throughout. Bizarrely, he was very self-congratulatory, particularly when comparing himself to the people he worked with and wrote about.
Bailey produced exactly what CPS wanted from him: Misdirection, blame switching, othering and deliberate omissions.