Having survived at least three television debates of such lethal cunning, Dave and Boris finally emerged together in a dark, vacuous cavern. A 129 year old Joseph Bech greets them with a tweak of his moustache and a tip of his dusty fedora. “You are strangely dressed for knights” he remarks. “We’re not knights yet”, Dave replies, “but we will be the second we retire”.
Toward the rear of the cavern stand some thirty glittering, golden cups, each one full of more promise than the last. Boris can barely contain himself, his eyes reflecting the inviting shine of gems and a golden future [ed. shouldn’t that be “Golden Dawn”?]. “Which one is it, which future do I choose?” There were many options for Boris to choose from, but he could not seem to make a firm commitment to any of them. Bech tries to offer advice, whilst munching on a potato pancake. “You must choose a future. But choose wisely. For as the true grail will bring the UK economy to life, the false grail will take it away.” Boris ponders for a moment. He takes a breath, tousles his own hair, and after stuttering for fifteen to twenty minutes says “well as you all know, I am a historian, but I have no idea what the future looks like, and frankly, I’m prepared to apologise if I pick the wrong one. Now, which one is it?” An Austrian bureaucrat steps out of the shadows and says “let me choose, I have a PhD”. For a moment Boris looks relieved, the pressure is off of him. But then, a voice calls from far away, faintly resembling Michael Gove, “don’t listen to her, she’s a goddamn expert!” Remembering that his entire expedition was funded on the proviso that expert advice be shunned at all times, Boris ushers the Austrian away. “If I’m going to lead” announces Boris “I must do so in total isolation”. Striding forward with a new sense of purpose, whilst waving a miniature Union Jack, Boris reaches for the heaviest, most jewel encrusted cup he can find. Through watering eyes Boris gushes “this future is more beautiful than I’d ever imagined.” It seems implausibly pretty, as if this one cup can solve all of the problems in the UK with one swig. Without a second thought, that is exactly what Boris does, and drinks greedily from the goblet of promise. “Here’s to everlasting economic growth and migrant free trade deals.” There is a glow of satisfaction, Boris knew he had won. But then he is struck by a crippling pain in his chest. Burdened by the weight of unrealistic economic and immigration promises, Boris begins to age rapidly, his body thins, the fat literally falling from his face. Within seconds he is transformed into his father, Stanley, and suddenly his views on this whole EU situation instantly change. Bech smirks “he chose…poorly.” So it is left to Dave. He steps up, pensive, but channelling the spirit of Churchill, whispers to himself “I’ve come this far on Europe, I won’t give up on it now.” Surveying all of the options in front of him, Dave concludes “the future won’t be made of gold.” In the midst of all the shining and attractive promises, stands a single, bland goblet. The cup is worn around the edges, dented in places, with a couple of chips in the glaze. “That’s the cup of the status quo” states Dave confidently. The Austrian expert quietly agrees. “Only one way to find out”, and Dave drains the water from his battered cup. Turning anxiously back to Bech, Dave asks pleadingly with his eyes. Bech smiles, “you have chosen wisely. But the grail cannot pass the great seal, now that you’ve got it don’t go running off to Turkey with it or anything daft like that.” “And immortality, am I immortal now?” Dave asks with a genuine sense of anticipation. “What?” An incredulous Bech responds, “immortal, no, of course not. Frankly I think your position was going to be pretty much untenable however this played out.” “But, I don’t feel any different, I don’t feel any better…” Dave whimpers with disappointment. “Well, you wouldn’t, nothing has changed. You’ve chosen the status quo, so things will be pretty much as they were.” “Well, that’s not very exciting”, Dave mutters whilst looking down, lazily kicking out at a pebble. “No”, Bech responds, “but economic stability, maintaining close working relationships with existing partners and collectively working on resolving problems together is not exciting, but it’s better than making a choice that would tear this room in half, cause massive earthquakes and risk losing our shared wealth down a massive chasm.” “We’re not talking about grails anymore, are we?” “This was never about grails Dave, grails are exciting and dynamic, the prospect of changing something always gets the heart rate up, but you’ve got to ask yourself, is that change for the better?” “So, have we ditched the Indiana Jones metaphor?” “Yes, Indy has served his purpose, we’ve taken it as far as it can go, plus, an extended 1989 film reference might be lost on a lot of people reading this.” “It’s lost on me, I mean, I’m a cool cat an’ all, I’ve certainly heard of Indiana Jones, and he was great in Star Wars…” “Shut up Dave, frankly, nobody wanted to hear from you on any of this in the first place. The important things to take from this, if you’ve stuck with it this long, is that all that shines with glitter and gold, is rarely something of substance. We have been given gold plate covered promises. Scratch the surface, and commitments from the Leave camp on the economy, immigration, the NHS, funding for subsidies, heck, even regarding sovereignty (there being all sorts of other international organisations to whom we [sorry, “you”, I forget I am voicing a deceased politician from Luxembourg] defer our laws to, can all be shown to be built on rusted tin. There is no substance to the Leave arguments. The EU is far from perfect, but it’ a heck of a lot better than the reality facing the UK without it. Do the sensible thing on the 23rd of June. Vote In, and make Europe better from within. There is so much that is positive about British involvement within the European Union, and too much to be gambled on an ideological whim.” End credits – ride into sunset (or overcast conditions if filming in the UK). For reference sake, Farage was going to be cast in this as a support role Nazi officer, but I felt the script would be too long with his inclusion. Suffice to say, Farage is a bit of a Nazi, and we don’t like him.
0 Comments
The Slippery Slope: British Society and Media, the loss of Jo Cox, and a frightening future.6/20/2016 This blog was first written on the 18th of June, prior to the use of the word "traitor" by the man charged with the murder of Jo Cox. I felt it was perhaps of greater significance to retain the use of the word, following the courtroom announcement. This country stands on a precipice. The death of Jo Cox, a mother and a well-respected, politically engaged, Member of Parliament, was a shocking tragedy. That we have returned to an age when our elected public representatives are seen as legitimate targets for brutal attacks, should shake us all to our core. Yet as horrific as what happened on the 16th of June might have been, it is not some symbolic end to anything. Jo Cox’s death cannot be considered as our society having reached the bottom of the slippery slope. Instead, we collectively stand at the top of it, facing a choice of whether we pull back or slide down, and face whatever oblivion might be at the end. In instances like this, there is always a window of time in which it is deemed inappropriate to make what is described as “political capital” out of the death of a public figure. Equally, there is a point in time when the opportunity to address something toxic in our society, that which led us to the tragedy in the first place, is lost. In our digital media age, where the white noise of talent shows and ninety minute patriots dominate our attentions, it is all to possible that the loss of Jo Cox will fade into memory, and the window which reveals the ‘why’ of her tragedy is closed to us. This cannot be allowed to happen. Put simply, the death of Jo Cox, is an indictment on our political leaders, our national press, and our collective nationwide disregard for the toxicity levels which we expose ourselves to. In short, we are all responsible for the death of Jo Cox. Much will be made in the coming days regarding the motivations and mental state of Thomas Mair, the man apprehended for the fatal attack on Jo Cox. Some newspapers will come to focus on so far tenuous connections to the far-right and pro-apartheid groups (evidenced by a lapsed magazine subscription), while others will choose to emphasise the questionable mental state of the assailant. Editors from left and right publications will be spinning, as subtly as they can, narratives which aim to undermine the growth of the far-right in Britain today, or weaken any narrative which might allow for the Leave EU Referendum campaign to be tarnished through association. The scrabble to associate/disassociate will be messy, poorly disguised and merely contribute to the undercurrent of poison which flows through our media. It is they who can be held responsible. Whether Thomas Mair is shown to be mentally insane, politically disinterested, politically motivated, or any of the above, it is impossible to ignore the wider cultural context in which this murder occurred. Mair, as with almost everyone in Britain today, could not have escaped one of the most brutal propaganda campaigns we have ever had to endure in British media history. Every day we receive narratives which demonise those most vulnerable and least responsible for societal ills. In turn, those narratives go on to demonise those who might stand by them. It used to be the case, indeed it almost became a British tradition, to hammer hard on a native white population claiming benefits. These were the scum of our society, bringing us all down. Today, in the wake of the noxious EU Referendum, it is migrants. Migrants, we are told by a certain cabal of hate mongering publications, are responsible for the (apparent) weakness in our economy, the lack of jobs for good British people, NHS waiting times, an overcrowded prison population, the housing crisis, the rape and murder of British citizens, and, of course, terrorism. The list could easily go on. These bold claims are consistently and easily dismissed in most instances. The narrative that current migrations levels are critical to the sustainability of the British economy is well established and argued, yet this is not the theme which will find its way onto front pages. Instead, what appears on our front pages, are sensationalist narratives which place collective blame on all migrants, regardless of background, ethnicity or circumstance. Our national newspapers, throughout the referendum campaign, have been shown to consistently exaggerate and lie. The lies are picked up, and retractions forced upon the papers, yet those retractions and apologies appear buried away in the small print of the inner pages, hidden underneath the latest round of incendiary bile. It is a rare day in British media for a publication to run their front page with the headline “Sorry, we lied”. While the narratives of fear are spun, regarding the terrible consequences for British society in the light of (so called) uncontrolled migration, those that might defend migration are portrayed as traitors. How could they not be? The London media is awash with warnings that British culture could be eroded within a matter of years, that the EU is about to disappear under a tsunami of economic migrants, while within their ranks come armies of terrorists set to launch attacks of insurmountable savagery on citizens – how could you not be a traitor if you try to defend these consequences? Indirectly of course, this is what Jo Cox, and anyone defending the position of migrants within our society, was being accused of; Cox was a traitor. Her beliefs would, indirectly of course, lead to the destruction of British civilisation as we know it, the deaths of your grandparents in a broken NHS and an ISIS flag flying over Downing Street, or some such related provocative hyperbole. The EU is the enemy, migrants are the enemy, Cox was the enemy, or that at least is what certain publications have been allowed to portray. In a cultural context where sensationalist exaggerations, and outright lies, dominate national headlines, it is inevitable that members of a general public which is unquestioning of its media, will be left angry and hostile. Muir existed in this context, in an environment where every single day, a new headline would proclaim the evils and threats of migrants. It is not just the “troubled” minds which would be led to wanting to proclaim “Britain first” in confrontation with Ministers, or members of the public, who might want to defend what is depicted as the demise of British society. Of course, our political elite are perhaps no better. After all, the likes of Gove, Johnson, Farage, Grayling and IDS who have all taken a turn to tarnish the traveller. Much has been made of the Nazi inspired anti-migrant posters proliferated by Farage and his UKIP compatriots. Who knows if they really believe what they say and warn about migrants? What we do know is that each and every one of them stands to benefit from spinning such stories. The ethics and morals of the political hierarchy has been in question for decades, from sleaze to child abuse, from expenses scandals to illegal warfare, what difference does a little demonising of migrants make at this stage? Yet politicians are politicians. They have goals to pursue and to achieve. Some may be more agreeable than others, but each has their own agenda, and that includes Cox. While these public figures are responsible for what they say and spin, they are still figures that we put there. Public representatives don’t get to represent the public without being put there by the public. In turn, they can be removed by said public. The same might be said of newspapers and television media. A right wing publication can slap whatever headline they might want on a morning edition, but we make the choice to pick it up or not. Again, we have the choice to scrutinise our media, to question the validity of the information they feed us. Given the volume of retractions forced during the Referendum campaign, certain newspapers should be treated with the same level of derision and scorn regarding the “truth” as our political leaders are, but that is not the case. As a public, we should hold our politicians accountable for their actions. We should do the same of our media. In this regard, the general populace should be held to account as much as those who might create the narratives which we consume. But we should all be held to account in the context of what happened on the 16th of June. The insane outpouring of an individual’s hatred, is a by-product of all the agenda led campaigning and lie riddled media reporting. Through our consumption of the hostility of the EU Referendum campaign, we have facilitated the creation of a country where opinions contrary to the media majority are seen as those of the enemy. Increasingly, the moderate, left of centre viewpoints which says “hold on, these migrants really aren’t that bad”, will be identified as those of the traitor. In such circumstances, two paths present themselves. Down one route is the voice of silence, where the moderates fear the reaction to their opinion, and say nothing. The other path is one of expression and freedom of speech, coupled with hostile, perhaps violent responses, designed to suppress the alternative perspective. This is the slippery slope. The death of Jo Cox is a true tragedy. In the history of British political assassinations, it is hard to think of an individual more popular, well liked and simply unlikely to be the victim of such an attack. Yet at the bottom of the slippery slope is a British Isles where the likeable, and moderate are the enemy. It is their views which will be seen as the danger to Britain. It is their views which will be silenced. As much as the right wing national media, and irresponsible and reckless political elite are to blame, so too is it the collective responsibility of the British public. We have accepted a climate of hate and fear, tolerated narratives which make enemies out of those least capable of hurting us. Every time we consume a sensationalist headline, or nod in quiet agreement when the likes of Farage finger point the migrant as being to blame, we accept a reality in which our Members of Parliament in turn, become the enemy. How long after that, do we become the enemy? How long until our opinions, against the establishment, are portrayed as traitorous? This dangerous reality does not have to happen, but our acceptance and tolerance of the path which we, as a nation, now walk, could lead us to it. We are not at the bottom of the slippery slope, but were we to ever get there, our rights and freedoms to ever complain about what we find there, will long since have gone. |
Archives
January 2018
Categories
All
|