It is clear that some thought a suggestion I made this morning was excessive. I said:
Brexit created a shibboleth in our society. This election is confirming it. And on one side there are people who lack all self respect and decency. You could not vote for Johnson otherwise. I hate to say it, but the divide is now as blunt as that. And it needs to be said.
I had previously argue that:
[Johnson's] refusal to play this election by the normal rules of decency, fair play, mutual self-respect and integrity confirm that [he] really is a man willing to cheat, lie and sabotage his way to power at any cost. We have not seen a politician so brazen before. I hope we do not again.
My assumption was that this should be apparent to all. I happen to think it should be. In that case, I presumed my conclusion followed. Given these so obvious failings, and that Johnson has made clear that they will be implicit in his approach to government, I suggested that any vote for him and his party, for whatever the reason, represented an endorsement that should be obvious to all. And I suggested that was only possible if those making the choice so lacked either self-respect or integrity that they were willing to be ruled in this way.
I accept the approach was not subtle. But it has the merit of honesty. This is what I think. And the issue has almost nothing at all to do with Johnson's politics.
I stress, I have friends with whom I do not share political opinions.
Since my university days I have been more than willing to socialise with people from political parties I do not support, including Tories, some of whom I have liked along the way.
And despite the suggestion that I am deeply partisan, I remain of the view that I can think of at least five parties in this election I might vote for, dependent on the seat.
I would suggest then that I am for from small minded. I would also suggest that whilst it is undoubtedly true that I have little liking for the Conservative Party's approach to society in general, and its current leadership in particular, the issue I am raising is not about that. I would have the same concern if this behaviour came from any other party. Indeed, I do have it with regard to the Brexit Party and did also with regard to UKIP. As evidence note the context in which I commented: this was a response to the blatant game playing around participation in the Leader's Debate on climate issue, in itself an issue far too important to be game played.
The issue is not particularly then. It is instead existential. In a country without a written constitution, and where checks and balances are very largely in place solely because of the willingness of all in the political process to respect all others engaged in that process (as was apparent in the debate last night, where differences were real, but expressed within a context of sufficient mutual respect) Johnson is the most obvious exponent of the case for abandoning all such self-imposed checks and balances that have been adopted for the greater good in pursuit of his own gain. And I do stress, his own gain. There is little. evidence that he is collegiate in any meaningful sense, at all.
Johnson's behaviour is deliberate. It is intended to be offensive. He thinks cheating acceptable. He is deliberately contemptuous. And fair play is a concept that appears beyond his embrace.
Of course, those may all be simply personal failings. I will not discuss whether nurture or nature has a part in that: I am not interested. I am simply noting the possibility that he may not understand that there are alternative modus operandi.
That, though, does not forgive those who vote for Johnson, in my opinion. If you know a prime minister in waiting has these faults and vote for him anyway then you endorse that behaviour, and the consequent risk to our system of government that his behaviour represents.
This is not being conservative.
It has nothing, as far as I can see, to do with being Conservative.
It has everything to do with respecting others, society and our political processes. It is about believing we have something in common, or not.
In that sense it is about a Tory claim that was also shocking in its day. That wax Thatcher's suggestion that there is ‘no such thing as society'. Johnson is the product of that thinking. I found it repulsive when Thatcher made that claim, which was, again, the antithesis of anything that anyone could reasonably think consernative. Now we have a prime minister seeking election to prove the point and, I suggest, to seek to shatter society in the process.
I stand by my comment.
I do not understand how anyone who believes in society can vote for Johnson. But that's not because he's a Tory. Or because of his policies. It's because he's a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, lying, cheat who thinks such behaviours are acceptable both personally and in office and in my opinion they never are.
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:
You won’t be at all surprised if I agree with your last paragraph.
I’ll just add the suggestion that Mrs Thatcher’s oft-quoted phrase that “There is no such thing as society” needs to be read in context. Here it is. https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 And a couple of quotes:
“… who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations …
… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.”
What she is saying, as she clarified later, is that the free-standing concept of a society cannot exist on its own. It is an artificial construct, made from people and their relationships, and their reciprocal duties and entitlements. Where she goes wrong, in my view, was in failing to recognise sufficiently the incredible power that comes from bringing people together as a society to take decisions and get things done collectively.
To add some balance to the push back you experienced on your earlier post, & to try to put things in perspective:
Current commitments given in the Paris agreements, even if met globally, would put us at more than 3 degrees plus pre industrial temperatures. This risks setting off the climate tipping points that push us even higher, and puts us into a world that would struggle to support 1 billion people.
That Johnson couldn’t even turn up to the climate debate shows his contempt for all of humanity. I literally believe he should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
If you can vote for Johnson you either have no idea just how serious the climate emergency is, or you are knowingly capable of voting for one of the worst humans who has ever lived.
The window for trying to address the emergency is closing and we don’t have time for another 5 years of government inaction.
Fair comments. Unfortunately the alternative seems even worse.
Richard (not Murphy) –
You say “Fair comments. Unfortunately the alternative seems even worse.”
There needs to be more than that. What is the alternative and why is it worse?
Ta.
‘Fraid I reluctantly take the view that his mother had?has mental health problems and he may have inherited some of that difficulty, to the detriment of all of us. Certainly the motto for Johnson and his cabinet colleagues should be egos ‘r’ us…
http://www.progressivepulse.org/politics/egos-r-us
I think avoiding hustings is standard Tory policy, where the Tory candidate believes they may come out of the debate badly. So Johnson will not attend a debate on climate change. My local MP Soubry never attended hustings and was re-elected. In a fairly recent council election, every candidate bar the Tory attended a hustings. The Tory candidate was elected with more votes than all the other candidates combined.
In voting Tory, people believe that they have sufficient money to go private, or that the bad things will happen to other people. (They also believe the Tory narratives, which Labour have done nothing to challenge.)
Thatcher didn’t claim that there was no such thing as society. She claimed that society had no automatic right to services. (Which is Tory policy.)
Good for you coming back to your previous point which did not seem to go down well. It was hard to disagree with some of your detractors but all I would say there is that the environment is ALREADY toxic and war-like before you expressed your frustration and amazement as to how this most nasty of parties manages to endure – like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings. The Tories have been creating a civil war since 2010. But is Labour’s ‘for the many , not the few’ strap line any different really? Think about it.
I for one understand your antipathy towards Tory voters and potential ones Richard. I feel that you are a good man and care about others and the world. The effort you have put in excuses your despair and frustration for me.
To add further context, we are living in an increasingly individualised world (Adam Curtis calls it ‘Hyper-individualised’). One symptom of this is the identity politics phenomenon. The other is how markets help us to self realise – we buy stuff and choose beliefs (religious, political and otherwise) that effectively make us as a person in our own self-image (spoiler: is it our own image – or the market’s?). The philosophy of ‘existentialism’ is at work here and the threat is that it atomises the potential of the collective. And puny man survives because of collective action – be in no doubt about that.
I’m not creating excuses – just noting what could be at work.
I recently have been looking at the words attributed to chap called Jesus of Nazareth. We all know what he said during his torture and his execution (‘Forgive them father…..etc’). BTW I think Jesus – whether he was a man or a concept – was a cool dude who knew a thing or two about human behaviour. The first socialist in my view. So I choose to take his words to heart without the son of God stuff which I choose not to take to heart. Anyway………
All I can say is (taking Jesus’ example) the Left – all progressives – need to stick close to our values and not lose empathy with why people might vote Tory. They vote Tory because their money means more to them or their upbringing means that they do not know any better or that they have been misled and lied to by others. So they cannot be making the right decision for some reason. Be like Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird) – put yourself in their shoes and by doing so, use that insight to reach them in a better way with our far superior and sustainable pro-social alternatives.
Even if they win on December 12th what are the options? Go native? Leave? Stick it out to be there to lead us out eventually when the chickens come home? Why not? We are not them remember?
Goodness knows – I have known despair in all of this lately and I have said things about the other side that I have become ashamed of. I have heard other compassionate people reduced to viciousness and revenge too.
It only becomes war if we negate each other. If we as progressives are righteous, then we will be patient – and ready. In the meantime, we must learn to take the pain – or stop feeling.
‘Stop feeling’? Then you might as well be dead. Such are our choices! We did not make this. But here it is. Who and what are you going to be in this situation?
Choose.
And then be at peace.
And wait.
Either to lead us out or to be lead.
Thanks PSR
We have had deeply flawed leaders before but they all accepted that to be leader required playing by the rules and having at least some conviction that they represented the country as a whole and not just solely a segment. They were all willing to justify asking for people’s votes by appearing in public or in the modern age on television which allowed for the flaws to be more visibly taken into account.
Boris Johnson has refused to participate in any significant way in this election because his minders know that to do so would expose his flaws and damage the prospects of returning a Tory Government. He is undoubtedly a bogus and corrupt leader. He was chosen by his party solely on the basis that he was believed to ensure that the Party was electable not for what he stood for which is in fact nothing. Now the minders have realised their mistake and see him as a liability and keep him away from promoting the Tory party . Johnson and his Party have no significant policies except for promises that they believe the electorate want to hear covering the NHS, Policing and Immigration but all of these are delivered half-heartedly and can be easily reversed once power is regained. They are of course relying on the B word to put them back into power and have so refrained from campaigning at all believing this alone is all that is required. A so called “steady as you go” manifesto proves they have nothing to offer beyond the decrepitude of the nation as it stands today.
The nation’s obsession with one issue will deliver a government based on a much smaller percentage vote than in the referendum because the Tories know that another referendum in all likelihood will deliver a different result so they need to rely on gaming the quirks of a General Election, quirks which were tolerated when everybody agreed the rules of the game but should not be when the accepted ways of doing things are ignored.
Voters are indifferent when they see that their votes have little impact. It is time for major electoral reform so that an individual’s vote counts a little more. But turkeys won’t vote for Christmas.
The Conservative Party has certainly changed and is no longer concerned about conserving anything but their own privileges and those of their wealthy climate change denying backers. Thankfully, though almost far too late, the general public has become more aware of the crisis and political parties, led by the Greens with over 30 years campaigning on this issue are taking the subject seriously. When I joined the Ecology Party in 1983 we were regarded as bearded, sandal wearing muesli eaters and rather a joke. Now at last people are waking up.
I would just like to add, for all Richard’s anger and frustration with his recent post, I have read his book ‘The Courageous State’ and the possible world (yes – it is possible) he paints in that book is a place where I’d like to live, see my kids grow up, and I and them grow old and die in.
I’d also like to see everyone else living in such a society too – BREXITEERS, Farage, Johnson and even Dom included.
Typo s/be: far from small minded
It’s all a question of priorities. For instance what is more important than discussing climate change and policy to tackle it? It may be the case that BoJo dodged the leaders climate debate to pay due respect at the unveiling of a statue of the anti-semite Nancy Astor. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nancy-astor-statue-theresa-may-boris-johnson-antisemitism-plymouth-a9226106.html
The Sun and the Mail (who’d have thunk it) report that when it comes to supporting Britain, HRH the Duke of York used his publicly funded missions to promote ‘tax efficient schemes’ provided by a private bank in Luxembourg. A bank owned by one time business partner, tory donor and tax avoider David Rowland. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10459364/prince-andrew-trade-tax-deal-epstein/
Hardly pictures of the convergence of social attitudes or serious attempts to heal divisions.
Interesting, undoubtedly