Skip to main content

Reframing the narrative

Watching the ongoing Dominic Cummings car-crash unfold has been an extended exercise in watching norms be subverted in real time. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so worrying. From the initial blush-free rebuttals of "fake news" right up to the flimsy excuses about test drives it has, from start to finish, been one of the least edifying displays of political re-positioning since the Iraq War and the dodgy dossier. Worse, perhaps, in that this is lying without shame, with a smile on its lips, with a nudge and a wink. Denial becomes admission becomes it doesn't matter though in the blink of an eye. Johnson produces glasses at a Press Conference, claiming that sight loss is a COVID-19 symptom. It's theatre, it's easily proven that he's long needed them, it doesn't matter. Cummings demonstrably breaks guidelines, he admits to it, it doesn't matter.

It is clear that Government strategy is the age old line-drawn-lets-move-on. And even if Cummings hasn't apologised, he's intimated contrition, accepted that people might be angry. Gove has been doing the media rounds this morning doing much the same thing. We understand, we don't agree, we get what you're saying, but it was reasonable. They calculate that this will be enough to keep him in position.

This gas-lighting strategy is reliant on the whole thing blowing over, but it isn't enough on its own. Too many people have abided by the rules, too many people have lost loved ones, missed funerals, not held the hand of their dying relative. Put simply, too many people have a very justifiable reason for being angry, and to have the government turn round and tell them that it's their own fault is a risky strategy.

Which is why a subtle reframing of the narrative is under way. Because if there's one culture war you can reliably ignite with a minimum of difficulty, it's Brexit. It's been fascinating (and horrifying) to see the Cummings debate reframed in Leave vs Remain terms. It started when the clergy started to condemn Cummings, on social media they quickly became "Remainer bishops". Account after account defends "our Dom", says he's too clever to be beaten by "Remoaners."

One would be forgiven for thinking that a betrayal of the Blitz-Spirit-all-in-it-together lockdown would be anathema for Brexiteers. After all, wrapping oneself in the flag is very much their thing, and Britain's collective effort to observe lockdown has been inspiring. It's been, until recently, largely immaculate. Most people have behaved impeccably. Even the much-abhorred panic-buying was vastly overstated, with only 6% of the population actually indulging in it. But this is to  misunderstand the depth of the chasm in the Brexit debate. To Brexiteers, Dom's the man that made it happen, and any threat to him is a threat to the whole project. He can't be allowed to fall

Naturally, with the revelations over Cummings coinciding with an understandable degree of fatigue, this popular observance of lockdown is now fraying. This suits Government attempts to get things open again, they can be seen to be bowing to popular opinion, it also shifts the blame for a second wave of infections squarely onto the shoulders of the public.

But that's just a handy side-effect from HMG's point of view. They didn't want this row erupting, and the easiest way to make it go away is to marginalise it. Represent the anger as the views of the minority, no matter how sizeable that minority may be. Indeed, you can represent a majority as a minority, in much the same way as 17.5 million Leave voters were represented as "the people" in a country of 66 million inhabitants. Insist, as Gove has, that "most reasonable people" will agree. It worked after Brexit, maybe it can work again this time, too. At the moment, it doesn't look like it, but Cummings has beaten the odds plenty of times before. Johnson's staked his political career on this happening again 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Inedible

"He says it's inedible" said my front of house manager, as she laid the half-eaten fish and chips in front of me, and instantly I relaxed.  Clearly, I observed, it was edible to some degree. I comped it, because I can't be arsed arguing the toss, and I want to make my front of house's lives as simple as possible. The haddock had been delivered that morning. The fryers had been cleaned that morning. The batter had been made that morning (and it's very good batter, ask me nicely and I'll give you the recipe some time). The fish and chips was identical to the other 27 portions I'd sent out on that lunch service, all of which had come back more or less hoovered up, we have have a (justified, if I do say so myself) very good reputation for our chips. But it was, apparently, "inedible". When it comes to complaints, less is more. If you use a hyperbolic word like that, I'll switch off, you've marked yourself as a rube, a chump, I'm not g...

Chop chop

I was completely ignorant of the fuss over the edited Trump speech in an edition of Panorama until, one moment later, I wasn't. And the reasons for my ignorance are instructive. I had no idea that the story was even brewing until the surprise Sunday night news of the resignations of Tom Davie and Deborah Turness. As I'm sure you are by now aware, this was occasioned by a clumsy edit in an old edition of Panorama, which has already been on the iplayer for a year. It's a non-story. Except people decided to make it a story. The reason I'd heard nothing of it until the resignations was that I'm not on X, where, apparently, it was all the media classes had been talking about for a week. It was an obsession of the unholy right-wing trifecta of the Mail, Telegraph and Times (who, given that they sent a bloke just last week to interview the wrong Bill di Blasio, you'd think would wind their necks in over factual inacccuracy). It was big news on GB news, all self-contain...

Creepy old men

I note, somewhat wearily, that creepy old men are back in the news, being creepy. Creepy old men, and their apologists and enablers, who argue that their creepiness is somehow the natural order of things. Old men would have you believe that it is difficult to not be a creepy old man. That it is a task of epic proportions. It is not that difficult. It is a matter of intention. As yet more of the grimness of Epstein unfolds, creepy old men are, sadly, a flaccid topic once again. Whether it be pursuing students thirty years their junior, or simply not asking too many questions about the background of the probably legal young woman who you've just been introduced to by your good pal Jeff. To be clear, I am not referring to criminal creepy old men, the ones who actually committed statutory rape, the ones who fucked trafficked hirls. That is not something which is allowed to get away merely with the contempt of the observer.  That deserves prison.  No , I'm referring to the hinterla...