Is this the beginning of the end for Great Britain? The Keyboard warriors over at The Guardian seem to think so. The go-to news resource for the theoretical left-wingers has been working overtime since their long-time enemy The Conservative Party was elected into power in May.
For the individual citizen, the frustrating defeat of a preferred political party after a general election can be felt in so many devastatingly direct ways, once policies are implemented and the realities of new laws become apparent in every day life.
But for newspapers in the UK, whose editorial rhetoric is built on a foundation of adversarial politics, it is a goldmine of opportunities for infantile “I told you so” mud-slinging and doomsday predictions. Whether this approach is simply responsive to – or has actively formed – the nation’s obsession with its own social division I as an outsider cannot comment, but it is sadly reflective of a culture that can only categorise opinions in binary oppositions.
Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg highlighted this issue in his first address to his disgruntled party and betrayed voters over the Conservative coalition -or his “pact with the devil” as many saw it.
‘He insisted that he would not manufacture synthetic rows with the Conservatives simply to raise his party’s progressive identity. – He also admitted he was under constant pressure from friends and colleagues to pick a fight with the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and to show the extent to which his party was distinct from the Conservatives.’
I sympathise with his predicament. As a party that has become so comfortable holding opposition in parliament, it is a major shift in attitude to suddenly accept an ideological compromise, and that consequently you will have to accept some responsibility for your part in any decisions arising from that compromise.
While the Guardian did Support the Liberal Democrats in the election campaign, they have now taken up their usual antagonistic position to distance themselves from the party’s actions.
They are relishing the chance to rally readers into a passionate frenzy by constantly spouting not-to-subtle references to the “Thatcher Era” and the ominous future a revival of those polices would lead to.
Right on cue was Theo Hobson’s article that came out with this analogy of the two families (Schlegel and Wilcox) of the EM Forster novel Howards End and his explanation for society’s political division. It is as one commenter put it, self-congratulatory in its defence of liberal ideals and painfully simple in its depiction of any opinion other than his own… “If you’re not with us, then your AGAINST us” shouts the angry mob.
Sneer ye not. Liberal guilt is nothing to be ashamed of. It’s really just the political expression of that rather old-fashioned thing, conscience.
If this little parade of privileged anxiety fills you with derision, then you are a Tory. Rejection of liberal guilt is the very cornerstone of the Tory soul, the unofficial definition of Tory. “Look how relaxed I am about my place at the feast,” says the Tory. “Regard my sense of entitlement. Inequality and privilege are nothing to be ashamed of; they are part of life, and life is good, n’est-ce pas?
Beware the “socialist” puritans, they say, who want the world to be radically different, who dream dreams and scheme schemes, and worry that someone somewhere is having fun. Don’t be anxious about your status as a comfy bourgeoisie, but blumming well rejoice in it, you chump!”
Now I couldn’t claim to be a socialist in any traditional sense of the word- I’m sure this is more than directly related to my consumerist leanings – but then I have no illusions that anyone over at The Guardian is either.
Yet still another day, another guardian article: even mildly suggestible readers such as myself- although aware of their scaremongering tactics – find it hard to resist the temptation to wade through the days headlines as they fill up my inbox:
“Poor in the UK dying 10 years earlier than rich, despite government action”
“Graduates warned of record 70 applicants for every job”
“The emergency budget: Taking from the poor”
As well as reporting/commenting/propagandising on a huge number of issues relating to Broken Britain’s failing society via prison system reforms, decriminalising drugs, veganism and whether it is ever acceptable to wear nude coloured tights. (Shiny or matt I ask?)
While newspapers have in some ways kept their initial purpose of providing commentary on daily events to the public, it is not the content of their articles that provide the best insight into shifts of public opinion and socio-political trends.
As a testament to the strength of their social opinion engineering, I find myself eagerly lapping up hours to-ing and fro-ing between the respective arguments that inevitably populate the comments section below any of their articles. Focusing hard to ignore all the shameless stereotyping that becomes the default retort to any statement a reader disagrees with, I try to take in all perspectives and form a balanced opinion. Yet as soon as I think I have found the definitive solution to one of society’s ills, another responder comes up with an equally convincing argument to derail the previous statement. How does anyone manage to be so zealous and resolute in their entire outlook on life, when I cannot even decide if minimum pricing on alcohol is a path to reduced consumption?
I used to worry that I couldn’t understand British politics- and how it intertwined with their social structure- enough to write authoritatively on the subject. Now I realise that that is the case with most of the British public, including the journalists, whose job it was to educate them.
