Skip to main content

Calling names

"Left-wing economic establishment" now, is it?

Yes, Liz Truss is BACK baby, and absolutely none of it was her fault, as it turns out. The fever dream that was her premiership, with mortgage rates soaring, markets crashing and billions wiped off pension funds was nowt to do with her. Rather, it was that her policies were thwarted by the *checks notes* "Left-wing economic establishment."

Leaving aside the obvious jokes about the bonds markets being hotbeds of Marxism, Our Liz's spectacular re-engagement with politics is an absolutely prime example of one of the few things this Government's ever been any good at, to whit, calling people names.

If you can remember far enough back, I think it was George Osborne that started it, when he attempted to demonise everyone on benefits as "shirkers". It didn't really stick, largely because it sounded like something out of a minor Dickens novel.

Big Tegsy May had more luck with "Citizens of Nowhere", her rather dog-whistling slogan designed rather successfully to deepen the Brexit divisions which have riven our country these last six years (is that all? Feels like millenia). "Citizens of nowhere" became of a piece with "Liberal metropolitan elite", all labels intended to rile the sort of Brexit voter that refers with a growl to "that London". The cynicism of this ploy, and the rather patronising assumption that no-one outside the capital is capable of ordering a flat white, worked distressingly well. Even more ugly was its cousin "North London Liberal Elite" which basically meant: Jews (though no one would admit to that).

By now, they fully had the bit between their teeth. May begat Johnson, who is never shy of a neologism or two, but under his administration it was the thrusting young pillock, Suella Braverman, who most assiduously pursued name-calling. Always fond of chucking the word woke around, she finally reached her apotheosis after Johnson was defenestrated with the mighty "Guardian-reading, Tofu-Munching Wokerati" and was then promptly sacked. I mean, how could you top that? At least she'd also had the opportunity to repeatedly name the enemies of Truss as "The Anti-Growth Coalition" before she was dumped, but that one never really stuck, after all, by crashing the economy, it was fairly obvious that Truss and Kwarteng had done more to destroy growth in the British economy than any number of Guardian-reading tofu-munchers.

The purpose of all this tiresome name-calling, of course, is to sow division, by attaching a label to something, one can classify it, and if it's not "us", then it must be "them." And "they" be they "loony-left", or "woke", or "metropolitan elites" are to be feared and hated, electorally speaking.

There is, however, an even darker side to these rhetorical tricks, and the upshot could be witnessed in Knowsley last night, as a mob gathered outside a hotel housing asylum seekers and rioted. All the insults I've detailed above have mostly been used in the internecine warfare of British party politics, and are also, for want of a better word, lame; where name calling turns even more rancid is when it's deployed against actual others, to wit, those coming here fleeing persecution, war, whatever it is that motivates them to try to make it to Britain for a better life (which does sound like a bit of a hollow joke at the moment, but do bear in mind that however much of a mess this country currently is, it's still a sight more stable than, say, Afghanistan).

The name-calling directed against asylum seekers is of a different order of seriousness altogether, and the Home Secretary is particularly culpable in this regard. It's an old, old trick, get a group of people to blame for people's lives being bad and hope that no one spots that it's actually you that's been in charge for the last 13 years. It worked with the EU, then Brexit turned out to be a disaster and we needed a new scapegoat. People in little boats were perfect. Call them an "invasion", call them a "swarm", deny all knowledge when violence is visited upon them.

Language is important, and how people are labelled is important. Note the regular usage of "illegal" ahead of "asylum-seeker" even though there is nothing illegal about seeking asylum. It is name-calling of a different order. What was intended to be a fairly cynical, but relatively light -hearted blog about the return of Truss (I started it last week, but I've been a bit busy) has been recast in the light of a burning police van. Calling people names has real-world consequences. It's time they stopped.

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...