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

A whole new world.

I appear to have moved into the pub. Now, I don't wish to give the impression that this has come as a complete surprise to me, we'be been planning to do so since shortly after I bought it, but still, it's sort of snuck up on me and now I'm waking up and thinking what happened? How come I'm here? The reason for this discombobulation is that this move was initially a temporary measure. Mrs Coastalblog had some relatives coming to stay, and it made sense to put them up in our house while we decamped to the flat. It's still a work in progress, but a mad week of cleaning and carting stuff around made it habitable. I had a suspicion that once we were in we'd be back and forth for a few weeks. As with many of my hunches, I was completely and utterly wrong. As it turned out, once we were here, we were here. Things moved at pace and, now our kitchen appliances have been installed, there's no going back, the old house is unusable. It's left me with slightly mi

Mad Dogs and Immigration Ministers

It is with no small degree of distress that I'm afraid to say I've been thinking about Robert Jenrick. I know, I know, in this beautiful world with its myriad of wonders, thetre are many other things about which I could think, the play of sunlight upon dappled water, the laughter of my children, the song thrush calling from the sycamore tree a few yards away from where I type this. Yet the shiny, faintly porcine features of the Minister for Immigration keep bubbling up into my consciousness. It's a pain in the arse, I tell you. A few years ago on here I wrote a piece entitled The cruelty is the point in which I argued that some policies are cruelty simply for the sake of it, pour decourager les autres . I was reminded of that recently when I listened to Jenrick defending his unpleasant, petty decision to order murals at a migrant children's centre to be painted over. You've probably heard the story already; deeming pictures of cartoon characters "too welcoming&

20

Huh. It turns out that this blog is, as of, well, roughly about now-ish, 20 years old. 20. I've been doing this (very intermittently) for twenty bloody years. And, I cannot help but note, still am, for some reason. I've done posts in the past, when this whole thing was comparatively blemish free and dewy-skinned looking back on its history and how it's changed down the years, there's not really a lot of point in doing that again. It's reflected what concerns me at the time, is, I think, the most charitable way of phrasing it (a  polite way of saying that it's been self-absorbed and solipsistic, but then, it's a blog, this should not come as a shock), it's interesting for me to look back over the lists of posts, but not so much for you, I imagine. Likewise, pondering how I've changed in the intervening years is also fairly pointless. It's painfully obvious that I was a very different person at 25 to 45, my experience of jobs and kids and marriage