Fucking brilliant, Ian: exactly the amount of contempt they deserve. With regard to your last sentence, this MRP poll from electoral calculus suggests Badenoch's seat is under threat.
Almost impossible to understand that with her majority she should be in danger, but that's indeed how it is. My daughter and her family and friends will all be among the votes against her and I'll be pushing them to make sure they vote tactically!
Without agreement by the parties involved, surely the effect of such sites will be minimal? So many three-way marginals around here. I'm South Cambs, which I'd assumed would be a shoo-in for Lib Dems. Not so according that site.
The parties don't have to agree to it for it to happen, though of course if Labour stood no candidate in your constituency they could affect things. Their calculus is that it is better for them overall not to do such deals overtly, but I bet they put more or less effort into specific seats covertly.
She did herself few favours on R4 Today this morning. This is meant to be a matter she is personally invested in, yet she was not at all on top of her brief, and came across as defensive, unpleasant and, well, a bit thick.
Only if Lib Dem and Labour voters can decide between them which it is. The other could maybe have one of the surrounding seats (eg St Neots) in exchange. However, I don't see this happening.
You couldn't have put it better if you'd spent a month on writing it. Spot on. The good old Goebbels tactic. Hatred and demonizing the other, because many people are afraid of the other.
The trans debate is about a difficult subject, but they aren't interested in that subject, the nuances it contains and how it might be possible to work towards a solution. Just a vicious slash at the target for a cheap point. Of course it's nothing to do with being trans, it's the same approach whatever the topic.
Fundamental to the approach of populists is the sowing of seeds of division. There is always an assumption that it is not possible to promote the wellbeing of one group in a society without doing down another group. So today women are set against trans-women; tomorrow the example will be a different group who re ‘othered’. Always one group is treated as having no needs or rights and is seen as a threat to the in-group. It is, of course, perfectly possible to design policies that protect women from predators without consigning all trans-women to an ‘outer darkness’. But this would not serve the hateful and disingenuous designs of the populist.
Good people of all faiths and none have sought to promote the treatment of all others as neighbours’. I live in hope of seeing candidates and parties of all strands of our political life reject the baleful behaviours so well called out in this article. Thank you, In, for putting it so well.
I’ve just listened to the interview. Badenoch is despicable and Mishal Husain polite but unrelenting (as an independent journalist with integrity should be). Mishal asks and invites Badenoch to address the public policy issues, rather than simply to invest in division for electoral advantage. Badenoch makes it clear she does not welcome such an invitation. It is clear that Badenoch has one thing in mind - the exploitation of what she sees as an electoral opportunity - what you Ian call a wedge. And she is truly angry that Mishal Husain has been able to bring that out so clearly. And then, Badenoch - at the conclusion of the interview - is invited by Husain to contemplate the demeaning and inappropriate behaviour of a political colleague who has done the same thing. Badenoch is simply stumped by the question and outraged by the ‘temerity’ of a BBC interviewer who dares to ask obvious and sensible questions about precisely what is involved in the minister’s proposals for making a change in public policy. Great piece - and I hope Matthew is wrong and that she will be replaced by the electors of the new Essex division.
As ever, very much on the money. It feels to me like the country has lost its mind since 2016. There’s no complexity, no nuance in public debate any more. Everything has to be a wedge issue and only the loudest voices get heard, so everyone shouts all the time. Someone, please make it stop!
Social media have certainly played a role, though I’m not sure you can hold them entirely responsible.
It is odd, though: I can remember in the early days of Facebook and Twitter that people used to say that these platforms were going to be great for democracy. People power and all that. How wrong they were!
The stupid, awful, offensive thing about this is that there could quite easily be broad consensus on tightening up the definition of protected characteristics in the Equalities Act. It was written before we had broadly accepted that gender (the identity, that messy psychology gives us) is distinct from sex (what messy biology gave you). Done sensibly, dispassionately, and with an eye on taking as many people with you as possible, it could be an important step in helping to defuse one of the most bad-tempered debate topics around. But of course they have to use it as a weapon in the culture war because it seems to be all they have now.
'Sensibly, dispassionately, and with an eye on taking as many people with you as possible' is what JK Rowling tried, and what many women have been trying for over a decade. The response has death threats, rape threats, and zero support from people like Ian.
Well said. I really want this country to put the culture wars behind it. Such a pointless waste of energy. Let's kick lumps out of a football and not each other. (This applies to some on the left too although not the leadership or mainstream of the current Labour party).
As you say, with such clarity, the worst thing is that it’s all about generating hate and division and exclusion and othering, no doubt prepping us all for what they hope and expect to be a populist future someday, even if it isn’t going to happen this time. It’s sickening and thanks for regularly calling it out for what it is.
Ooooffff: not stopped me getting more annoyed with Labour on a daily basis, but maybe slowed down the rate of anger increase. Thank you from my blood pressure. When oh when will our politics be a matter of substantive nuanced debate?
Thank you for encapsulating exactly how I feel about this government. I've always disagreed with Conservatives, but I've never felt such visceral rage until Johnson and all that followed for precisely the reasons you state - the hatred; the division; the disrespect; treating the electorate like toys to be wound up and pointed at their preferred target. It's utterly despicable. My biggest fear is that they've started something that can't be undone. I hope there's a way back.
Thank you for reminding me of that moment, in the Chamber. It's so easy to forget, to drown in despair. I can but hope we get more of that compassion and empathy once they're in government.
Bravo on this takedown of Badenock and her ilk. Firstly this made my smile as it is exactly my stance at work "I'm sure you have views on trans issues, for or against, and I can't tell you how much I don't want to hear them" secondly as much as it riles me it gives me comfort to know all of the division is futile because it doesn't just sow hate it sows frustration and that is showing in the polls, people who want things to change in their lives do not a want culture war they are tired of it the only people this culture war plays into are those so well off they can afford to reduce
mentality to hate and spite as they don't mortgages to lose sleep over. Believe me i know the type my rich bigoted uncle is exactly the target audience. This truth is this vile rhetoric is playing to the base by being base and moronic the outcome the Tories are in a culture war with themselves and Reform and the spoils of this war? To have meaningless support from the worst sector of society. Fuck them and their hatred because change is coming in the form of a liberal Labour govt to transform this broken country and hate is not on the manifesto.
Two comments from me, on top of saying that this piece is another winner:
1. Please feel free to keep using Lego pictures to illustrate work. I’m happy to help.
2. Your comments on those razor-sharp wedge issues, where there are those looking for solutions and those who just want to score points; my own experience talking to people within my (Jewish) community about Israel/Palestine is that there are those who, confronted by a point like this, will launch into an impassioned defence of the position that it’s “our side” that looks for solutions while “they” are just being hateful and making things worse. So they agree that wedges should be smoothed, but insist that it’s the other side that’s doing all the sharpening. Which, frankly, is as paradoxical as it is unhelpful.
Thirty-two years ago this week non-Serb residents of Prijedor were ordered to wear white armbands in public, and thus began the Bosnian Serb ethnic cleaning in Bosnia - Herzegovina.
Having spent a formative five years of my early career involved in investigating and prosecuting atrocity crimes related to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, I honestly could not agree more with your statement, Ian, that this is the real binary,. Because Prijedor (and Foca, Ahmici, Srebrenica, Vukovar, etcetera) is where us-vs-them politics inexorably leads. And yes, it can happen here. It can happen anywhere.
Fucking brilliant, Ian: exactly the amount of contempt they deserve. With regard to your last sentence, this MRP poll from electoral calculus suggests Badenoch's seat is under threat.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20240531.html
Almost impossible to understand that with her majority she should be in danger, but that's indeed how it is. My daughter and her family and friends will all be among the votes against her and I'll be pushing them to make sure they vote tactically!
How do we do this?
There are several Tactical Voting websites, the one run by Best for Britain will be a good one:
https://www.getvoting.org/
Without agreement by the parties involved, surely the effect of such sites will be minimal? So many three-way marginals around here. I'm South Cambs, which I'd assumed would be a shoo-in for Lib Dems. Not so according that site.
The parties don't have to agree to it for it to happen, though of course if Labour stood no candidate in your constituency they could affect things. Their calculus is that it is better for them overall not to do such deals overtly, but I bet they put more or less effort into specific seats covertly.
She did herself few favours on R4 Today this morning. This is meant to be a matter she is personally invested in, yet she was not at all on top of her brief, and came across as defensive, unpleasant and, well, a bit thick.
Trouble is, she thinks she's an intellectual. In fact, she's an ignorant bully. I cannot abide her.
Funny that.
Thank you that's fascinating
Only if Lib Dem and Labour voters can decide between them which it is. The other could maybe have one of the surrounding seats (eg St Neots) in exchange. However, I don't see this happening.
You couldn't have put it better if you'd spent a month on writing it. Spot on. The good old Goebbels tactic. Hatred and demonizing the other, because many people are afraid of the other.
The trans debate is about a difficult subject, but they aren't interested in that subject, the nuances it contains and how it might be possible to work towards a solution. Just a vicious slash at the target for a cheap point. Of course it's nothing to do with being trans, it's the same approach whatever the topic.
Fundamental to the approach of populists is the sowing of seeds of division. There is always an assumption that it is not possible to promote the wellbeing of one group in a society without doing down another group. So today women are set against trans-women; tomorrow the example will be a different group who re ‘othered’. Always one group is treated as having no needs or rights and is seen as a threat to the in-group. It is, of course, perfectly possible to design policies that protect women from predators without consigning all trans-women to an ‘outer darkness’. But this would not serve the hateful and disingenuous designs of the populist.
Good people of all faiths and none have sought to promote the treatment of all others as neighbours’. I live in hope of seeing candidates and parties of all strands of our political life reject the baleful behaviours so well called out in this article. Thank you, In, for putting it so well.
Brilliantly put Paul.
I’ve just listened to the interview. Badenoch is despicable and Mishal Husain polite but unrelenting (as an independent journalist with integrity should be). Mishal asks and invites Badenoch to address the public policy issues, rather than simply to invest in division for electoral advantage. Badenoch makes it clear she does not welcome such an invitation. It is clear that Badenoch has one thing in mind - the exploitation of what she sees as an electoral opportunity - what you Ian call a wedge. And she is truly angry that Mishal Husain has been able to bring that out so clearly. And then, Badenoch - at the conclusion of the interview - is invited by Husain to contemplate the demeaning and inappropriate behaviour of a political colleague who has done the same thing. Badenoch is simply stumped by the question and outraged by the ‘temerity’ of a BBC interviewer who dares to ask obvious and sensible questions about precisely what is involved in the minister’s proposals for making a change in public policy. Great piece - and I hope Matthew is wrong and that she will be replaced by the electors of the new Essex division.
As ever, very much on the money. It feels to me like the country has lost its mind since 2016. There’s no complexity, no nuance in public debate any more. Everything has to be a wedge issue and only the loudest voices get heard, so everyone shouts all the time. Someone, please make it stop!
When we look back in a few years time I wonder just how much of this will be felt to have been attributable to the rise of social idea.
Social media have certainly played a role, though I’m not sure you can hold them entirely responsible.
It is odd, though: I can remember in the early days of Facebook and Twitter that people used to say that these platforms were going to be great for democracy. People power and all that. How wrong they were!
The stupid, awful, offensive thing about this is that there could quite easily be broad consensus on tightening up the definition of protected characteristics in the Equalities Act. It was written before we had broadly accepted that gender (the identity, that messy psychology gives us) is distinct from sex (what messy biology gave you). Done sensibly, dispassionately, and with an eye on taking as many people with you as possible, it could be an important step in helping to defuse one of the most bad-tempered debate topics around. But of course they have to use it as a weapon in the culture war because it seems to be all they have now.
'Sensibly, dispassionately, and with an eye on taking as many people with you as possible' is what JK Rowling tried, and what many women have been trying for over a decade. The response has death threats, rape threats, and zero support from people like Ian.
Well said. I really want this country to put the culture wars behind it. Such a pointless waste of energy. Let's kick lumps out of a football and not each other. (This applies to some on the left too although not the leadership or mainstream of the current Labour party).
As you say, with such clarity, the worst thing is that it’s all about generating hate and division and exclusion and othering, no doubt prepping us all for what they hope and expect to be a populist future someday, even if it isn’t going to happen this time. It’s sickening and thanks for regularly calling it out for what it is.
Ooooffff: not stopped me getting more annoyed with Labour on a daily basis, but maybe slowed down the rate of anger increase. Thank you from my blood pressure. When oh when will our politics be a matter of substantive nuanced debate?
Thank you for encapsulating exactly how I feel about this government. I've always disagreed with Conservatives, but I've never felt such visceral rage until Johnson and all that followed for precisely the reasons you state - the hatred; the division; the disrespect; treating the electorate like toys to be wound up and pointed at their preferred target. It's utterly despicable. My biggest fear is that they've started something that can't be undone. I hope there's a way back.
Thank you for reminding me of that moment, in the Chamber. It's so easy to forget, to drown in despair. I can but hope we get more of that compassion and empathy once they're in government.
Bravo on this takedown of Badenock and her ilk. Firstly this made my smile as it is exactly my stance at work "I'm sure you have views on trans issues, for or against, and I can't tell you how much I don't want to hear them" secondly as much as it riles me it gives me comfort to know all of the division is futile because it doesn't just sow hate it sows frustration and that is showing in the polls, people who want things to change in their lives do not a want culture war they are tired of it the only people this culture war plays into are those so well off they can afford to reduce
mentality to hate and spite as they don't mortgages to lose sleep over. Believe me i know the type my rich bigoted uncle is exactly the target audience. This truth is this vile rhetoric is playing to the base by being base and moronic the outcome the Tories are in a culture war with themselves and Reform and the spoils of this war? To have meaningless support from the worst sector of society. Fuck them and their hatred because change is coming in the form of a liberal Labour govt to transform this broken country and hate is not on the manifesto.
For me Ian, you have unequivocally hit the spot 👏🏼👏🏼
Two comments from me, on top of saying that this piece is another winner:
1. Please feel free to keep using Lego pictures to illustrate work. I’m happy to help.
2. Your comments on those razor-sharp wedge issues, where there are those looking for solutions and those who just want to score points; my own experience talking to people within my (Jewish) community about Israel/Palestine is that there are those who, confronted by a point like this, will launch into an impassioned defence of the position that it’s “our side” that looks for solutions while “they” are just being hateful and making things worse. So they agree that wedges should be smoothed, but insist that it’s the other side that’s doing all the sharpening. Which, frankly, is as paradoxical as it is unhelpful.
Still, a month to go now. Onwards and upwards.
Over here we nearly the same. See Adam Serwer’s The Cruelty is the Point: Why Trump’s America Endures.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/665171/the-cruelty-is-the-point-by-adam-serwer/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/
The Cruelty Is the Point
President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear.
“This is the real binary.”
Thirty-two years ago this week non-Serb residents of Prijedor were ordered to wear white armbands in public, and thus began the Bosnian Serb ethnic cleaning in Bosnia - Herzegovina.
Having spent a formative five years of my early career involved in investigating and prosecuting atrocity crimes related to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, I honestly could not agree more with your statement, Ian, that this is the real binary,. Because Prijedor (and Foca, Ahmici, Srebrenica, Vukovar, etcetera) is where us-vs-them politics inexorably leads. And yes, it can happen here. It can happen anywhere.