I can't be alone in finding the last couple of days very trying.
The murder of Jo Cox was deeply shocking. There has been a rightful outpouring of emotion, in my opinion, but I admit she was a member of the broader community in which I have worked for quite some time. Maybe that is why I am also so shocked by the reaction of so many to what has happened.
To say the necessary first: I do not believe that any mainstream politician in the UK could be, let alone should be, blamed for what has happened. I do not condone any such claims. They are wrong.
But those claims that suggest - and I have had them in social media and in person and the idea also seems common in some parts of the press - that this action is that of a mentally ill person, as if that is what should be expected of such people - are as wrong.
I am fortunate to have never suffered a mental illness that I am aware of. But I have been close to and carer for some who have. I am not gong to claim expertise as a result: I only have some experience of the impact mental illness has, how hard it is to get help, and that it seems to be harder now than it was in the past. But the one thing I have learned is that those who are mentally ill live in communities, are frequently unidentifiable to those around them, and are rarely a cause of concern to anyone beyond themselves and those who know them best. The number who need to be isolated is a tiny proportion of the whole, and they are usually a threat to themselves.
So, if a person has committed a political crime (and we cannot know that as yet, although I share the feeling of our major party leaders that this looks likely to be the case) then it is not acceptable to suggest that this is down to illness because that maligns those with mental illness, shows a massive lack of understanding of the condition of the vast majority of those who do suffer in that way, and anyway ignores the fact that the person committing the crime still lived in society and was open to all the influences within it. The claim that the person was a loner is absurd: again, vast numbers of people meet that criteria and are no threat to anyone. Living alone and showing signs of the conventional perception of introversion (which is itself hopelessly misunderstood, which I can say with confidence as I am one) is not a diagnosis for any known risk.
I do not deny that in a tiny number of cases mental illness can induce a person to kill. However, even when that happens, and particularly if there is a supposed political motive (and this is known, of course) that person's distorted political logic is not bred in isolation. No one's is.
Again, I stress, I am not suggesting any mainstream UK politician has offered views that should result in such hatred that a murder might follow. I am confident in saying that.
I am equally confident in suggesting that racism, which I think to be a form of hatred, is a feature of UK politics. I have, for example, said for some time that I am willing to offer advice to any UK political party that asks so long as they are not racist. When asked what that means I have been explicit: I will not advise UKIP. I do think it is racist. The poster it published in Thursday was clear indication of that, in my opinion.
And I do think that parts of the EU referendum campaign have been based on the promotion of irrational fear and intolerance. This has not only been on race grounds. Experts have also been mentioned, but that's a euyphemism for the intellectual, and they have always been near to the top of the list when the politics of division is being constructed.
I in no way think or suggest that all who will vote Leave next week are racist. I know full well they are not.
Nor do I suggest voting Leave endorses racist views. It does not.
Nor am I saying that discussion of migration is racist: as I have made clear on this blog such discussion is needed and is appropriate.
But just as some who are promoting Remain have in other spheres used far too many crude metaphors (scroungers, the work shy, and so on) so too are too many in the Leave campaign guilty of using crude metaphors that incite division.
I will be clear: this does also require a careful review of the language of the left as well. I am not excluding it from review. Very obviously left wing politics has also used the language of hate on occasion. So let me be clear that I am not wishing to take a single sided view here. I will be considering my own language in future to consider whether on occasion it is too broad brushed and sweeping in its generalisations. If change is demanded it may be so of us all.
But it's saddening (I won't use the word depressing) that many seem to have no awareness of that and what has even been going on. I hope for greater awareness of the need for moderation, even when opinion is strongly held and oppression is real, in due course. As Jo Cox said in her maiden speech, it is still likely that there is more that binds us together than separates if only we are to look. But I am not hopeful that many will take heed.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
‘I do not believe that any mainstream politician in the UK could be, let alone should be, blamed for what has happened.’
I agree if you mean by ‘blame’ that there was any intention that such an event should have happened. BUT: there should be an acceptance of RESPONSIBILITY for the creation of:
1) An aura of factual and imagined misinformation created by politicians in recent years.
2) The use of cheap divisive slogans that marginalise certain groups in society.
3) The creation of a dehumanising environment where the total monetisation of the human is the goal
4) A dumbing down of our culture to the point where intellectual debate has virtually disappeared.
5) Utterly cruel regimes for the unemployed used as an ideological tool to create the partial illusion of rising employment.
6) Lies about money shortages for public purpose which illustrate the most staggering economic illiteracy of the political class.
7) An attitude of imperious derision that emanates from the vacuous ‘Eton Brigade’ that is indicative of impoverished communication skills and sneering contempt.
8) A Prime Minister of such vacuousness that it makes the mind boggle
9) A foreign policy of blatant imperialistic intent whilst our own citizens are left to resort to food banks and low paid jobs/spurious self-employment.
10) Continuous evidence of corporate greed and malfeasance that erodes trust in Government.
11) The ‘depoliticisation’ of Government as it leaves the main leavers of economic development to a rigged market and and uncontrolled banking system. Politicians pretending that economics is like the weather must not be allowed to continue.
Politicians need to reflect on this and NOW. It is a national emergency and the referendum, in my view should be scrapped to usher in such a national debate.
I’m not hopeful. I doubt we will here anything from the political class that offers any REAL self reflection, largely because they do not have the capacity such is there inflated self esteem. If politicians cannot recognise their own gross hubris, lack of relevance to reality and their puppet like connection to global economic forces then we are in ‘deep doo-doo’ (as Richard Wolff would have put it).
Martin Williams has just produced a book called Parliament Ltd. (www.amazon.co.uk/Parliament-Ltd-journey-British-politics/dp/14736338500) which is about the mountain of undeclared interests that still exist in the wake of the expenses scandal. Gisela Stewart was recently implicated in this after an interview with the authour (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/13/labour-mp-gisela-stuart-inquiry-alleged-failure-declare-interests-vestra-wealth).
This is yet a further sign that trust is utterly broken in politics and the media, not to mention the economics profession. We need acknowledgement of this and not in a manner that pays lip-service then carries on with business as usual.
Those are real issues Simon
What is the alternative narrative?
The narrative must be forge by us within a national debate. In my view it will entail forgiveness and reconciliation between the political class and the public. We need it urgently.
Simon, I endorse all your points above concerning the “blame”, or at least responsibility, attaching to politicians, but feel they need to be moderated by, or at least read within the context of, the absolute blinder of a “dead cat” strategy played by the real puppet masters at rge time of the 2008 GFC.
I’m sure everyone recalls how, in the early stages of the GFC there were clear signs that the public and the commentariat were waking up to just how crooked our banking and financial services “Cosa Nostra” really were, and how much they deserved to be at least reined in, and probably prosecuted.
Then, suddenly, as if from nowhere, the Telegraph ran the MP’s expenses scandal, and everyone, with an easy target to concentrate on, took their eyes off the ball, and instead focused on the referee’s behaviour, to use a footballing metaphor.
So, everyone was angry with the ref, ignoring the players, who were busy fouling left, right and centre – a quite brilliant “win, win, win” ploy for the puppet masters, and the three “wins” were:
1) a total change of focus from the real crooks to the minor league, since even if ALL 650 MP’s and 850+ Lords had been half-inching £100,000 pa each,(which no one EVER suggested was the case), that would only have amounted to £150m pa – perhaps a little more than the cost of paperclips in the MoD, but certainly less than a few bombing raids on Syria!
2) It devalued the power of the ONE group in society that COULD have reined in the puppet masters, namely the legislature, by blackening their reputation with the electorate.
3) Finally, and most importantly, it demoralised the legislature itself, which felt unable to act as decisively as it wished, and continues to be a component of Richard’s “cowardly state”.
Without the demoralisation of the MP’s expenses scandal, who knows what might have happened – how about FULL nationalisation of RBS, its breaking up into local investment banks, and enforced bank reform in return for the QE rescue dole out, most of which might have gone into the real economy via the local RBS investment banks?
We all know what unfortunately really happened, and can only stand in awe of the strategic skill of the puppet masters, who continue to play us for thexfools were have been and continue to be, because we continue to look in the wrong direction.
i agree with that, Andrew, to an extent. But this let’s the politicos off too much, in my view.
Loosening of credit controls goes back to the mid 70’s which is when the housing for banks bonanza started. The housing bubble and other bubbles were whipping up during Labour’s watch.
Andrew , your reasoning seems a little strange when you say ‘Without the demoralisation of the MP’s expenses scandal, who knows what might have happened ‘, as if without this there would have been an ideological shift if the ‘poor souls’ had not been traumatised by the exposing of their private ‘gravy trains.’ It’s an interesting thesis though – that Cameron, IDS, Osborne and co. would have worked in the public interest had they not been ‘demoralised’ by the expenses scandal -but I don’t accept that at all.
I think the reason the ‘eye was off the ball’ was because the ‘ball’ was a complex bundle of concepts that were hard to grasp by the general public and, let’s be clear, there was no, I repeat no, attempt by the political class to explain to the public what was going on in a way that was comprehensible -and this was reprehensible in the extreme. If I remember rightly, Richard (and Howard Reed?) in his document on Green QE, wrote about the ‘lack of transparency’ that surrounded QE for banks and it is this that erodes trust. The ‘ball’ wasn’t pinned down because it was near impossible for the public at large to do so. Research shows that 90% of M.P,’s don’t understand monetary operations -what chance did the public at large have?
Andrew, I think there is much truth to many distractive smokescreens being deliberately set off to divert attention away from the real source of the fire.
Some time ago you wrote (I think or maybe I read it elsewhere) about the remnants of the Chivalric Order and Code still running throughout the British Establishment (and probably most others across Europe at least). As good old wiki puts it:
“The Code of Chivalry, as it stood by the Late Middle Ages, was a moral system which combined a warrior ethos, knightly piety, and courtly manners, all conspiring to establish a notion of honour and nobility.”
This to me still sums up much of the upper echelons of our society, where th truth is just an “inconvenience” that gets in the way of their system of power, control and order.
It is something I intend to study more, as I’ve never really connected the dots about this particular form of systemic indoctrination still running through the corridors of power from birth to death (probably because I’ve thankfully never been too close to it!)
Simon, please attend more closely to my threefold reasoning (and I QUITE agree the politicians have been MASSIVELY at fault in this whole business), but my point was a) distraction b) neutralisation and c) demoralisation.
There can be NO doubt, but that the expenses scandal took the heat off the REAL villains, those responsible for setting the whole building on fire, making us look at MP’s expenses, which were a fire in a wastepaper basket by comparison.
Secondly, the contempt for MP’s thus engendered undoubtedly left MP’s less able to claim the necessary moral authority to make the changes required – which people WOULD have supported, with clear moral leadership from a leadership TRUSTED to be moral.
Finally, picking up on that last point, MP’s, but in particular the PM, Gordon Brown felt unable to take the necessary action because of that feeling of public contempt (do you remember how much Gordon was mocked for his video foray into the expenses imbroglio? I do. And HE was the one who COULD have acted – to hell with David Cameron and Osborne, who were in no position either to act or to criticise).
Without that “hobbling” of Parliament, I think it possible Gordon Brown COULD have taken the sort of decisive action the situation demanded, and that I have described. But instead, Gordon saved the banking cabal’s bacon at the cost of UK society at large. And THAT course of action resulted from the demoralisation I referred to.
For myself, I never WILL exonerate Gordon and Alistair from the charge of letting the banking Mafia off the book, and failing to pursue an “Icelandic solution”.
Interesting theory Andrew
Was is a conspiracy?
Who knows….
Andrew, the lack of transparency would still have been an issue and let’s be clear that as far as the banking system is concerned, politicians had already depoliticised themselves and let them run amok.
As for Darling, he made money out of a book on the subject and is now safely in the arms of Deutsche Bank, whilst crowing that the ‘banks are in better shape’. I don’t trust him.
I tend to think that Andrew has good reason for his suspicions. I’d like to be a touch contrarian and put in a positive word for MPs as individuals, and challenge that un-nuanced phrase of ‘politicians as a class’. Matthew Parris had a good point when he described our attitudes to politicians, MPs and Parliament as ‘lazy cynicism’.
Prior to the expenses ‘scandal’, I had the good fortune to work in the Houses of Parliament as they were a client. It taught me a huge amount about how the place really works, with some questionable activities but much more that was positive. The finance function was a client … and yes the expenses system was a joke. But to then portray all MPs as being on the make was profoundly dishonest, and that is what the Telegraph, supported by other media set out to do, with their strategy of dribbling it out over a long period of time. Our MPs were not adequately paid compared to other Parliaments or any comparable profession,and the expenses system had become the mechanism for compensating them. It was highly unsatisfactory and some MPs exploited it disgracefully. But some and not all
I saw and learnt from the inside, the work that goes on in committees, most of it remarkably non partisan and in sharp contrast to the farce of PMQs. It certainly convinced me that the bulk of MPs are committed, extraordinarily hard working and not obsessed with climbing the greasy political pole of power or lining their pockets. The internal Parliamentary staff have a better view of them than anyone and their opinions were very instructive… Though I still appreciated Yes Minister and In the Thick of It more than most people. And having the Health Minister as my MP does rather test my principles
For me the expenses scandal and the opportunity to denigrate politicians and divert attention from the financial crisis certainly fitted the agenda of the right-wing press. Not to mention diverting attention from Levinson and minimising its impact. Politicians and the press, chicken and egg – its become a deeply unhealthy relationship. I’d like to see the press and their off-shore owners challenged much, much more, but that will take some seriously determined and courageous politicians for it to happen. I don’t see any sign of it happening yet.
Spot on Simon.
Last year I was in a London taxi with my partner. We got talking to the driver whose wife worked in a (London) hospital. They were seeing an increase in people who were working, but malnourished to the point that they were fainting at work. These people had insufficient food to feed them & their children – so the kids got it and the parent went short. Shocking. He recounted this to a well known Tory MP (who he had in his cab) – the Tory point blank refused to believe him. That is the problme – denial by our so-called “elected representatives” that there is a problem (above) or a problem with poorly paid jobs with councils unable to enforce minimum pay legislatiion (due to cuts – by central tory government), the total lack of concern by all parties with respect to “the north” & unemployment etc etc. Respect needs to be earned – the political classes have a very long way to go to earn it – they certainly, collectively, do not have mine.
I know this happens
I cannot be sure why anyone would deny it
In my opinion, there are just too many “inconvenient truths” becoming very apparent to the public at large after 40+ years of an economic, political and social experiment that has gone very badly wrong for so many in society.
I believe that is why we see the increasing amount of denial, alternative narratives and damn right lies from those within the establishment (i.e. the epicentre of private and public power and wealth) who cannot accept so much of reality anymore (perhaps for many because of their puppet strings are being yanked even more tightly by their paymasters as Andrew indicated above).
It is probably just one of the complex reasons for the inevitable public backlash and outcry which has occurred post 2008, some of which as we have seen can get very ugly indeed.
Although from what I have read and heard so far of this particular incident, I am reminded more of the Norwegian attacks of a few years ago by Anders Behring Breivik, which while on a different scale altogether were equally shocking, disturbing and derived from an individual lone wolf driven by a complex mix of extreme hatred, politics and derangement.
Every society has its lunatics and extreme fringes, the question is how they are moderated and contained within a civilised social framework. We are clearly not getting that right still in my view.
Spot on as usual Richard. A few years ago Vince Cable made a comment at a select committee hearing about sleepwalking into fascism. Unfortunately he was right although I appreciate that his comments were made in a different context.
Indeed rather than sleepwalking into fascism, that is the point where we have already arrived at. A major factor is the demonising of groups of people such as trade unionists,the disabled, benefit claimants and people of colour to name a few examples.Whilst the media rightly condemned the actions of the perpetrator they have failed to put there own house in order. Coupled with the government’s intent to erode what little democracy we have, I don’t have much hope for the future.
I should have also added thanks to you, Richard, for mentioning the ‘mentally ill’ framing of this terrible event.
As someone who suffers mental health problems myself and who has worked with those deemed mentally ill I would like to second what you write above in regards to this as well as the oft repeated cliches about the so-called ‘loner.’ Plenty of people make decisions to live alone and limit their social contact, often writers , artists, musicians, monks, scientists may do this because it is a life they have chosen. The media is already parroting this image as if it were a sure proof of something – it’s utterly bogus.
For some years I worked in a day centre for people with mental health problems and never came across any issues of violence, on the contrary many evinced creative expression and capacity for deep thought and worthwhile perceptions about the world around them -they just needed more support and facilities to help with this.
This is the point that the unfortunate man who killed made in an interview with a local paper.
We need to remember that the most destructive acts of violence at an individual or group level are not made by people who have any diagnosis of mental health problems.
you are right, Simon. I also work-part time-in mental health. I have come across those who ‘split’, i.e. see the world in terms of us and them, all good and all bad. This distances them from reality but most of these retain the ability to have some empathy, which I think is at the core of our common humanity. There a percentage of psychopathic people who do not have empathy, and they can be high-performing in many fields. We would not think of them mentally ill. Some even do well in politics!
What we see is social media sites such as ‘Britain First’, which encourage this sort of thinking. People no longer need to be present to hear and see selected clips of video or be served up provocative posts. These are often two de-contexualised statements offering a ‘moral choice’. It leads to simplistic and de-humanisng judgements which people then internalise as ‘truths’.
There is nothing like meeting people of the ‘out group’ to realise they are human too. I have some American friends who held strong views about ‘Muslims’. Then they met some and had a polite conversation (not being racists) and saw their stereotypical ideas didn’t hold up.
Linking ‘mental illness’ with such acts as the murder of Jo Cox, affects public attitudes towards people who suffer in this way. It is not helpful. We need more understanding of emotional literacy and it should be integrated into the educational system.
please clarify that by mainstream politicians being free from blame you do not include Farage, he is culpable of fostering precisely the racist frenzy that leads to violence
My comment on UKIP was clear, I think
You strike the tight note Richard. You have an effective way of dealing with, shall we say, uncharitable posters. Let us express with passion our view, but without venom. I fear some do not have it in their heart to do so. The little ones of Jo and Brendan Cox will no doubt grow up with big hearts. Fight your corner with good humour as she did.
A plea for moderation. To whom?
That is very hard.
I have read Polly Toynbee’s article in the Guardian and I had to disagree with it. To paint all politicians as potentially innocent victims of approbation didn’t go down well with me (even though the actual victim in this case – a new member of the House – has not been around long enough to have done any harm and by all accounts had done much that was truly beneficial to humanity in her tragically short life – as others do too).
I’m not playing the blame game – even when I demanded Cameron’s resignation in a previous comment. I’m was serious. And Farage can go too – now – and for ever.
But a culture or cultures are created from all sort sorts of sources but mostly created at the top in society’s hierarchy. And if there is a culture of bating politicians then the bated must share the biggest part of the burden for creating this situation in the first place.
By the way they talk to each other (look at Parliament for goodness sake; where is debate)?
By the way their allies in the press conduct themselves towards their opposite numbers.
By the abuse of nationalist rhetoric they use to set peoples against each other.
By the way they insult and ignore experts who tell them that they are wrong.
By the way they abuse our democracy (the vote) in order serve the affluent few rather than the many.
And all of this because they know that they are peddling nothing but dogma to the electorate.
To say ‘you reap what you sow’ may be a bit strong here at this moment in time. Those Christians amongst you can find it in yourselves to forgive me.
But there is a truth in it. The fact that an innocent and genuinely effective person has maybe paid the price for the degenerate behaviour of too many of her fellow politicians and their allies is a tragedy.
But it is a tragedy that has been made and moulded by political conduct. We’ve said it before in this blog. Forces have been unleashed in order to win votes that will not be easily put back into the stable or calmed.
This is where we are. And this is how we got here.
What next? Was the death of one enough to change what passes as political discourse in this embittered isle? God I hope so………I hope so.
Forgive me.
You’re forgiven
I think you are pleading for moderation
This, from Bishop Nick Baines:
The man charged has now owned in court his far right, nationalist motive: he gave his name as “death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. Although speculation about motive was unhelpful in the early hours after Jo’s death, there was one observation that merited consideration: the political discourse in this country is poisonous — and recognised beyond our borders to be so. To put it bluntly: if the linguistic and cultural pool we swim in is poisoned day after day — with opponents in the Referendum debate being dismissed as dishonest, corrupt, abusable and our European partners being daily written off as corrupt, incompetent and (their real crime) foreign — then we shouldn’t be surprised when some people, for whatever broken and destructive reason, push language to consequent action.
I think Baines is right, and the people who have done most to poison civil political discourse (and you know as well as I do who these people are) have a serious case to answer.
Said here https://nickbaines.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/jo-cox/
And well said
Thanks James
At times like this, as a Quaker, I often look at Quaker writings going back to the 17th Century which I find help me keep my mind still and lift me out of the ‘dark niches’ of human thought. I came across this on by a 17th Century Quaker called Edward Burrough (apologies to non-theists as it does use the ‘G’ word but can be understood in a purely humanistic way as well):
‘We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government, nor are we for this party nor against the other … but we are for justice and mercy and truth and peace and true freedom, that these may be exalted in our nation, and that goodness, righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity with God, and with one another, that these things may abound.’
Edward Burrough, 1659
Those guys knew how to use a word
Astonishing how modern English was by 1659 too
Very much so, Richard, some think that this period was the high point of the English Language-the words seem to hit straight home and pierce the heart – they really connected with something which , of course, is what ‘religion’ is about.
hmmm… when the quakers set up Cadburys factory they made it a condition that there should be no taverns, pubs, gambling sends, brothels etc around the area. Even today there are no pubs in Bourneville.
Firstly, its intolerant
Seconldy, more importantly, it undermines any Chrisistian message
That was thought to be the Christian message at the time
They were human
Eriugenus – Bournville represented, at the time a HUGE improvement of the conditions of the workforce by the standards of 19th Century capitalism. Pubs/brothels and gambling joints are bty no means an expression of human ‘freedom’ but rather the way 19th Century capitalism ‘numbed’ the mind of the workforce so that inquiry into the nature of the economic relationship would be hindered.
Quakers considered gambling ‘unearned money’ (rather like the casino capitalism we have now). In the 19th Century the squalor that the working class lived in was beyond belief (read Engels’ description of Manchester) so to complain that the Quakers were being paternalistic and illiberal about giving their workforce ‘freedom from’ getting pissed/venereal diseases/and ruining themselves in a gambling joint seems rather odd.
Simon
im not being, I hope, anti-quaker. I’m not myself religious at all.
However, I think that coercing people into behaving well is morally questionable, More importantly, though, it does destroy Christian teaching. The Catholic church managed to reconcile that age-old bugbear “if God is good why do so many bad things happen” by the answer of human free will. God could stop people doing bad things but were s/he to do so s/he would deny them the will to act morally or immorally.
If God isn;t entitled to stop us acting badly then I scarcely think the quakers are!
I think you miss the point – Quakes are human. You and they cannot claim their actions are those of God. In that case you can make your case that they show human failing, but not that this proves a case against God
Erigenius – so improving the lives and living conditions of workers was coercion?
Read Engels and those descriptions of the living conditons in Manchester, then come back to me to say it was ‘coercive.’
People were payed there pittance in pubs and spent it on beer as the only escape from the intolerable work conditions often being 14 hour days-the booze wrecked them and their families.
OK., in Todays world the action of those Quakers seems paternalistic but presumably the workers would have had the choice to work in Bournville or remain living in dire slums but with knocking shops, gambling joints all around them to ‘test out’ their free will.
You are looking at it from a post 60’s perspective-which is the wrong context.
Don’t take the mickey -you know perfectly well that the Catholic Church would not condone brothels/pubs/gambling joints as a ‘test’ of free will and that society should not try to improve its conditions both morally and phsically.
Free will is more complex than that-if you think drinking and gambling is an expression of it, it ignored the dynamic of psychology. (I’ve done the drinking thing-it did not feel like real choice and free will, I can tell you).
Of course you could argue like Blake from his Proverbs of Hell: ““The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom…You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough.”
E.U take note!
As ever, a carefully balanced and thoughtful piece – thank you Richard and to other commentators
If one looks at the history of conflict in countries a recurring pattern is how politicians and the media work together (consciously or not), to position a particular group or groups as being the source of the country’s ills. It is invariably a strategy to divert attention from the real issues. It could be Muslims and Mexicans in the US, Catholics in Northern ireland, Tutsis in Ruanda, Shias and Christians in Pakistan, Tamils in Sri Lanka, and is intended to protect the interests of groups who wish to retain or grab power. I think the idea of the scapegoat goes back at least to Leviticus
It starts in a low key way and then gradually escalates, over years. Initially we don’t want to believe what is happening, especially if we instinctively hold liberal and tolerant views. But what was unacceptable behaviour in a society becomes legitimised. Snide, discreet remarks, become acceptable in public debate and at some point it turns to violence against the group concerned. Neighbours end up attacking neighbours. The media and politicians play a critical role in leading that debate. The lid is opened on a Pandora’s box and it can take decades to resolve. Broken communities stay broken for generations.
We have a Leave/Brexit campaign that is fundamentally based on the premise that the UK’s ills are the fault of two overlapping groups of foreign ‘others’ – immigrants and the EU. At a very rough guess, when one looks at the media and campaign material, its probably about 70% immigrants and 30% EU though when they are pushed it always reverts to immigrants. We had a dry run of this in the London Mayoral election and it has been brewing over years, led by Farage and UKIP, with Cameron colluding and something close to apathy from Labour. The pattern we’ve seen is just the same as in other profoundly damaged countries, and we’ve now had our first taste of violence.
This is not about exchanges between politicians and campaigners and attacks on each other, tasteless though they might be. This is about the fundamental premises of the political campaigns and their arguments. Whatever criticisms one might have of the Remain campaign, it has relied primarily on economic arguments supported by analyses and commentaries from institutions. It has not based its arguments on attributing the problems to specific groups of people who need to be removed from the scene. Though along with many other commentators here, I’d argue that it too has ignored deeper causes, including our financialised economies, and the power and influence of that group and its friends on politicians
So I’m not inclined to let the Leave/Brexit campaign off the hook. This is not racism as in the days of ‘no blacks or Irish’ so thats probably the wrong term to use. But it is every bit as dangerous, and for me its a profoundly immoral and dangerous premise to use as the primary foundation of a political campaign. How one counters the damage that has already resulted is going to be difficult and take a long time. As in all conflicts, it is the poor and less powerful who will suffer the most
“So I’m not inclined to let the Leave/Brexit campaign off the hook.
100% in agreement. UKIP/Vote Leave have behaved disgracefully in this appalling farce, becoming a tragedy, of a referendum. Whilst I have very little time for Cameron and Osborne, I have none whatsoever for anybody on the Leave side. Farage has never been anything other than a racist and nationalist, who routinely lies about the EU and seeks to take us back to some mythical pre-EU golden age of ‘sovereignty’.
But what is sickening is how senior Conservative and Labour politicians are supporting a campaign that, having lost the economic arguments, is now pushing the anti-immigrant line for all they’re worth, so desperate are they to win. And in doing so, they are responsible for creating a poisonous atmosphere of racism, anti-intellectualism and brainless nationalistic fanaticism.
I’ve already voted Remain by postal ballot, and I shall be attending the BBC referendum broadcast in Tuesday in Wembley. It will be I think, an “interesting” evening. Wish me luck!
‘and I shall be attending the BBC referendum broadcast in Tuesday in Wembley.’
Good luck though you might need a sick bucket and a handy supply of anti-emetics, not to mention a peg for the nose to avoid breathing in all the ‘guff’ that will be spoken.
I agree with what you say-though I wouldn’t let Cameron and Osborne of the hook, the two chief wretches that initiated the use of divisive language and fear largely responsible for the crescendo of mis- targeted background anger.
Worth reminding ourselves what a ‘pretty pass’ had been reached by 2012 (only two years after these bastards had been in power!) where increased attacks on the disabled were linked to there rhetoric surrounding benefit cuts : ‘www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/05/benefit-cuts-fuelling-abuse-disabled-people’ Farage rides on their shoulders!
Who are ‘the political class’? What does someone have to do to qualify for membership?
Presumably it includes all full-time elected MPs or AMs, plus the unelected House of Lords, but how far does it spread beyond that? What about elected part-time councillors? Or volunteer activists, from agents to canvassers or leaflet distributors? Party leaders would need to be included but how far down the party organisation does that go? National executives, constituency officers, local ward officers, delegates to constituency GCs, all full-time workers or only those with some decision-making authority, union political officers or delegates to party conferences? All political advisors, or just paid ones?
What about those with political influence outside parties? Senior civil servants influence policy but how far down the hierarchy does the political class extend, both nationally and locally? What about the private sector, from charities to businesses, campaigning and lobbying for political policies? Does writing a book, an article, a blog qualify you? Or commenting on social media? Is everyone working in the news media included? What about joining a demonstration, or do you actually have to organise it? How about voting?
Who exactly are the political class?
The question makes no sense. There are many things we cannot define – like being in love – that we none the less know exist
Asking me for a precise definition of the political class is a meaningless as asking me for a definition of love and yet without a doubt we know such a thing does exist
It’s also known as the Westminster bubble, although there are others in Stormont, Cardiff Bay and Holyrood. I expect they are rare elsewhere
But let me be clear asking the question adds nothing to knowledge, does not aid analysis, and is not intended to solve a problem precisely because the problem is one that permeates and is therefore to some degree amorphous, just sa any answer has to be, whilst still leaving the term entirely meaingful
Sorry, but the question does have to be asked. The term ‘political class’ is used far too often as an excuse to avoid engagement: it’s somebody else’s fault, they must do something. Citizenship as waiting for someone else to do something, then complaining if they don’t. I don’t include you in this. If you really believed there were impermeable bubbles around Westminster and other centres of power, why would you devote so much of your effort to trying to change policies?
The distribution of power in modern democracies is far too complex to reduce to a crude picture of ‘politicos versus the people’. We all have responsibilities here.
Then the political class are those consciously or it heroise have by and larg excluded others from playing an effective part – which us why local politicians cannot be in it
I’m also slightly uncomfortable with the sweeping term political class as I don’t think it helps to understand and then tackle what might be a more complex situation
A slightly different perspective on the ‘political class’ might be to suggest that what we have now is an acute concentration of power in the hands of cliques at the centre of the 2 main parties and maybe it is they who are disconnected.
The Tories now have a tiny number of ancient members, and of course their MPs are massively divided. Their actions to stop civil society organisation’s engaging in ‘political campaigns were certainly deeply disempowering and centralising, and the party is course completely beholden to their finance sector paymasters.
Meanwhile Labour have a substantial and much younger membership courtesy of JC, but then have their own form of fragmentation, and distancing of the membership from MPS.
But as been acknowledged recently, many or even most MPs are much closer to their constituents than they are given credit for. How close they are to local counsellors I don’t know. So I’m thinking that this about creating better links and accountabity between those power structures at the centres of parties (and tackling those outside interests – finance and the press as a start), the wider group of MPs, members and local counsellors and party organisation’s
A partial analysis I know – I haven’t mentioned the dreaded SPADS – but just trying to challenge what might be too sweeping a definition of ‘political class’. Feels like something that lends itself to be tackled bottom up. Labour are at least better positioned if they mobilise that new membership constructively and start bridging the gaps.
Thanks for the advice Simon! However, looking at the blurb on the ticket about ‘we’ll ask people to leave if they interrupt or disrupt the show or behave in a way likely to cause damage, injury……..etc’ I suspect very strongly held opinions won’t be allowed to be aired. I might die of boredom rather than nausea.
On the other hand, knowing the mentality of some of the less sophisticated Leave supporters, I’m wondering whether they might ‘kick off’, especially if the Remain side manage to get in a few good points about how Leave have been lying through their teeth on so many issues. If so, it’ll show them up for the fools they are.
We shall see what we shall see.