It’s been a slightly surreal start to the year. Looking beyond my finite, personal bubble (within which everything is going pretty well), there is no sense of optimism or hope. Those ideals which you like to scrabble for in the illusory nature of the re-birth of the year, are missing. Instead there is just a succession of ticking clocks – a countdown to Trump, a countdown to Article 50, and, if you really want to be bleak about things, a countdown to a General Election. That all being said, depending on which side of the political fence you find yourself on, this is actually a glorious period where all is well, and the giant heap of shit which was 2016 is actually a stockpile of fertilizer which will be used to herald in the rose bushes of 2017. It is optimism built on negligence, self-interest, and wilful ignorance. In the first few days of 2017 I’ve spotted some of the more degenerative voices of the political spectrum hailing 2016 as a ‘glorious year’. Douglas Carswell and, my local MP and general attention seeking xenophobe, David Davies both spouted on about how wonderful 2016 was. Davies went so far as to describe this as the greatest political period since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet, even the most hard-Brexit inclined, historically naïve and, again, xenophobic of elected representatives must surely reflect on 2016 as one of the worst political years since the 1980s, namely because an MP was gunned down and murdered. I wondered at the time of the death of Jo Cox, how long it would take for her loss to be forgotten. Granted, the most divisive of Prime Ministers had the gall to quote Cox in her Christmas message to ‘the people’ [a phrase which I presume now only applies to Leave voters, the rest of us all being ‘lefty commies who can jump off a bridge’], but it felt like a ghastly shadow, words of meaning rendered hollow by the grim spectre now uttering them. Generally though, those on the right, even the centre-right, have seemingly allowed the brutal murder of a sitting MP to just slip out of the consciousness. Even a passing mention by the likes of Carswell and Davies would do, an acknowledgement that even in their festival of triumphalism, that something utterly terrible had been inflicted on the political community. Yet, it was not the political community that was attacked, it was the left. More specifically, the murder of Jo Cox was an attack on a woman, a mother, and a single elected representative. The symbolism though is inescapable, both in the moment of the crime and in its treatment come the New Year. This was a clear attack on a left inclined politician. That her death has been so consistently ignored and forgotten by centre-right and beyond should be at the very least a cause for concern. In this new “post-Brexit” Britain [always remembering that Brexit is not even close to happening yet] where we are all being encouraged to reconcile our differences, it is perhaps worth dwelling on who, specifically is being asked to reconcile. From where I sit, these calls are very much focused on the left and the Remain voters, those who have been pushed, barged and barracked into the background. It is we who are being asked to ‘reconcile’; otherwise known as ‘giving up’. Let me phrase it another way, if the centre-right and beyond are comfortable in their selective ignorance of Jo Cox in their reflections on the political year, what else might they be willing to ignore? The banner tops are circulating on social media, hailing the democratic expression of 17 million voters supporting a cause, the greatest demonstration of support for a cause in British parliamentary history, so they say. Equally, the reverse narrative, of 16 million voters opposing a cause, the greatest demonstration of opposition for a cause in British parliamentary history, is of no consequence. While 17 million votes being cast for an as yet undefined entity should not be ignored, neither should 16 million voices who oppose supporting something which isn’t really a thing, and shows no sign of being something any time soon. Brexit was not so much a case of Turkeys voting for Christmas, but Turkeys voting for something that might be Christmas, or it could be Easter, or something altogether secular, we’ll let you know once we get there. The only certainty is that there is a loud, political, right wing collective of voices, who are determined to shout down any opposition, and it should scare us. It should scare us that the same cabal can turn a blind eye to the radicalisation of the white, working classes that is being perpetrated by the likes of the Daily Mail. It should scare us that the most educated in society are being ridiculed because they have earned a position of respect in their chosen field based on years of dedication. It should scare us that, for many, Jo Cox may as well not have existed. I’m happy in my bubble, because beyond the bubble, I see very little reason for optimism and hope. The divisions are there, and they will not go away when the mood of one side is to shout down and mock the voice of the other. I suppose the long and short of is this. While leading political voices and the most popular papers of the day wilfully overlook the worst extremes of right wing politically expressed anger, violence and extremism, just remember and reflect on this, 2016 was the year in which an MP was murdered. 2016 was not glorious, it was not successful. It was sad, and very scary.
0 Comments
There have been some notable buzzwords and phrases in 2016. ‘Brexit’ and ‘Trump’ are likely to be the ones to have the longer-term impacts, but let’s give due acknowledgment to the presence of things being ‘great’ and ‘beautiful’, while never forgetting that what we are always trying to do is to ‘take back control’ of something from someone (though the someone tends to be ambiguous to amorphous at best). Somehow, the conflagration of the above terminologies have all come to be associated with success (or fear, depending on how you voted). The one jargon phrase or description, however, to become most closely associated with something bad, out of touch, sinister even, is ‘liberal elite’.
I’ve been wrestling with the idea of the ‘liberal elite’ for some weeks now. As I rattle around on a train bound for London, to participate in an international conference on the role and importance of ‘memory’, I am forced to ask, am I the liberal elite? The evidence does not stack up favourably against me. After all, in my day job I am a university lecturer. I teach on a history degree, Early Modern stuff mostly (though I do moonlight on archaeology and heritage from time to time) – what in other countries would be loosely described as a liberal arts degree. Holding a PhD with a growing publishing record, I imagine I fall into that much-maligned category of expert – so two strikes against me. Of course, I am also about to attend a humanities conference, on a weekend of all things, so surely I am doomed – I must be the living embodiment of the liberal elite. That being said, I rarely feel elite; certainly, not in terms of fiscal considerations. Having lost one job (well, my liberal elite university was closed down by financial manager types, so it wasn’t really my fault), I had to give up the home I could no longer afford to run and move back to the old family home (three generations under one roof, that’s some 1960s style quality of living). I now conflate a variety of part time teaching jobs to sustain myself, but that is what I do, I am sustained, I exist – and before you ask, the only way I can do this conference and cover travel is through research funding. Based on my own financial status, I would not be able to afford it. So, I’m definitely not a financial elite. So perhaps I derive my power, as a liberal elite, over the political spectrum. Over the years I have voted for the Lib Dems (still feeling hurt), Greens (worth a shot, once), Plaid Cymru (still in hope) and there was even a time when I voted for Labour (I was young, and in south Wales – where you did as you were told). In all that time, I have never, not one single time, seen a candidate I voted for returned into power. In Wales, we have regional ‘top-up’ proportional representation seats, and I have been ‘proportionally represented’ in that regard, but otherwise, I am still in want of a voice in political power. The same might be said of the island wide referendums of late – AV = failure, Remain = failure. Indeed, if I try to find a period in my entire life when there was a ‘liberal’ voice in the ascendance, it must have passed me by (the coalition governments featuring Lib-Dems serving as a very poor substitute). So, no sense of the elite in terms of national politics. Is it in the media perhaps? Well, as I walk past newsstands, I tend to see a flurry of prominently placed, bold black type, statements of hate and isolationism, as the dominance of the right-wing print media squeezes the sector. I find television newscasters falling over themselves to promote the voice of the far right in popular politics, while anything centre left and beyond, appears to be a comic irrelevance. If the liberal elite control the media, then they are doing a remarkably good job of disguising the fact. Ultimately, I can only conclude that when the ‘liberal elite’ are cited, what people are actually citing, are struggling academics whose voice are not represented at any prominent level of government and who barely make an impact in the media. Heck, I can say confidently that, as a lecturer, the last decade has suggested to me that us lecturers are not always particularly welcome in the university sector either. I am liberal, but in no way practical way am I an elite. The other popular definition, most recently reinforced by our unelected Prime minister, is that the liberal elite pour scorn on those whose views conflict with their own – namely, spouting derision at those to have voted for Brexit. Well, you know what, I suppose this is where I really am guilty, because I consistently pour scorn on those who voted for Brexit. I had the displeasure of an evening in the company of a Brexiter a few nights ago. He could not contain himself in saying the national courts should back off [specifically stating that ‘that was democracy’, seemingly blissfully ignorant of his own hypocrisy] and that within ten years Britain would be entering a golden age (perhaps Golden Dawn would be more appropriate) of prosperity by being ‘out’…before citing that we would always be travelling freely in Europe and that ‘they’ would always trade with us on our terms because ‘they need us more’…I was on best behaviour. I could have ruined the evening, but I held my tongue – what a well behaved liberal elite I was that night… But no, his conflation of being ‘out’ with a classic retention of rights regarding all the things that the EU have cited could not be retained, is the exact sort of moronicry (yes, I am that much of a liberal elitist that I am creating my own words) that I can’t stand. The rationale presented to me that night, during the campaign, and beyond, has felt nothing short of moronic, isolationist and damaging. I’m yet to be convinced that not being willing to accept spurious through to stupid arguments makes you in some way a bad person, yet that is what the liberal elite are, in this instance, made out to be. Should I care about the consequences? Well, because as a member of the ‘liberal elite’, I am also held to account over being concerned about the well-being of others. Yes folks, that is part of the definition, that the liberal elite profess to care about others beyond themselves – what terrible people we are! Surely it would be much better if we got on board with the popularist rages of the day, that solutions are only to be found in the punishing of, or demonising the ‘other’, that all societal ills can be rectified by a symbolic withdrawal from a union that our politicians are now scrabbling to retain trading links with. No, I do not believe in any of that. I believe in the exact opposite, and I will not compromise my views to appease a vocal right wing media. And yes, I do care about others. However, I’ve done my days on constructions sites to earn a living, I’ve served food to wealthy (no doubt members of the liberal elite) shoppers in Cardiff when I lost my teaching job, and I’ve gone through the shame inducing punishment laden benefit system when employment opportunities dried up – yes, I’m liberal in my politics and yes, I’m elite in my judgement of stupid voting decisions, but my care for others is informed not by long distance ‘liberal preconceptions’, but by my own experience of being in the same position of poverty that so many others in this country find themselves today. I was lucky – I had the support of family and, in the end, a job in a field where I can actually use my knowledge and skills. That does not render worthless the experiences I went through when times were not so good. I know what it is like at that end of society, I care about those in it, and I will not support a political mandate that will, indeed can only result in the increased marginalisation of those worst off now. So, you know what, screw it, I am the liberal elite. If you voted for Brexit, I do judge you and I, categorically, do not respect you and question your judgement and, in part, morality. Yet, unless the unelected leader of this country decides to formally dispense with the thin veneer of democracy that remains on this island, I am well within my rights to have these feelings, to express these sentiments and to not be cowed by the, what is it, ‘minority…minority’? Is that the opposite of the ‘liberal elite’? Put to one side, I suppose, the fact that the ‘minority minority’ run government, run the media and have dictated the future economic course of the country for the foreseeable future, essentially, running everything outside of contemporary art prize funds (though it is only a matter of time). No, I will speak, and I hope and pray that the rest of the ‘liberal elite’ embrace what they are, and keep speaking and keep judging. The second we stop, then there really will be no opposition, and the demonising of immigrant/foreigner/disabled/poor will only continue to the point when we really would need an insurrection to re-set the country. That, perhaps, is a thought for another time…if there is another time…as a historian, and as part of the liberal elite, one wonders how long we have left, before the black shirts come knocking. 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. I have a new post out today on the Institute of Welsh Affairs website. Looking at the position of Plaid Cymru following the recent European elections, I argue that for Plaid to regain lost ground on their rivals, they need to adopt some of the tactics employed by UKIP, rather than become embroiled in a direct battle against them. 'While the status quo remained the same in Wales following the European elections, there was no shortage of change. With UKIP solidifying their presence in Wales and half the country turning from blue to purple after the final results, the political landscape is largely unrecognisable from a few years ago. The spread of elected representatives being sent to Europe from Wales is no different, but the signs are certainly there that the political will of the country has decidedly shifted. Throughout the European campaign, Plaid Cymru followed a path well trodden by the major parties, in basing the bulk of their arguments around why the electorate should not vote for UKIP. In some respects, the strategy paid off. Certainly Plaid Cymru have been concerned at the prospect of losing Jill Evans as an MEP, and descriptions of Plaid’s relief at the result, rather than expectation, are probably quite accurate. In terms of base results, yes, the Plaid plan paid off, but scratch the surface, and a story of stagnation and decline is perhaps more representative . . . ' The rest of the article can be read at: http://www.clickonwales.org/2014/05/for-plaid-to-grow-look-to-ukip/ |
Archives
January 2018
Categories
All
|