As respectable institutions and commentators have at last woken up to the fact that the manifestos of Labour and Conservatives brush under the carpet the important realities of the world, in what has been termed by others as a “conspiracy of silence”, are politicians gaslighting the British public?
If it is thought that they are deliberately obfuscating those realities, and for example are seriously considering tax rises or new taxes, and manipulating the public into believing untruths or half-truths, withholding important relevant scenarios, then of course they are gaslighting the public. There is little point analysing too hard the Tory approach and future promises as almost universal wisdom now is that Labour have won the game , its just a question of by how much.
But is perhaps a particular instance the repetitive assertions by Labour, mimicked by many commentators, that Britain is in effect an economic basket case, in Rachel Reeves words “the worst economic inheritance since the Second World War”, all the fault of the Tories, in fact gaslighting the public of the highest order?
Also, it’s widely believed that the Tories have hastened their own demise. So many of them have behaved badly, with possible improprieties, like insider gambling on the date of the election, still being perpetrated by an irresponsible few, and deserve a “kicking”. The fact of four Prime Ministers alone in the last five years indicates shambles and a complete lack of constancy. But the repetitive narrative of absolute incompetence on all issues which many are echoing continues Rachel Reeves’ line of gaslighting. Even Jeremy Warner in the Daily Telegraph, while he says he is holding no candle for the Tories, says “Britain is in better shape than Labour can admit”: he cites that Britain has had a higher rate of growth since 2010 than all its major peers including Germany, France and Japan; that the IMF forecasts Britain to have a higher rate of growth to 2028 than all those three countries; it has the third largest tech sector in the world; it has attracted more greenfield foreign direct investment in the past 14 years than any country bar the U.S. and China; and that many of the worst problems stem from the pandemic.
Arguably, it is lockdowns and the furlough and other subsidy schemes which have left the UK facing extreme difficulties. And of course, Labour was in favour of all of that and arguably wanted more lockdown and spending. Covid left the country, leaving aside other effects such as social issues, some £400 billion worse off in debt than it would otherwise have been. Maybe these were bad calls, especially with hindsight, but they were made in good faith and were echoed around nearly all the Western world.
The UK illegitimately manipulated, gaslit, and now other forces are revealing their background influences and a taste of things to come.
REAL AGENDAS
The Unions are quiet, but voices are emerging with snippets of things to come. Unison, the UK’s biggest Trade Union, wants a four day working week for all its workers, many of whom are in the public sector. Voters will not know until after the election what requirements the Unions will have, although there has been some disquiet that the Labour manifesto does not go far enough on expansion of employee rights. Opponents of Labour declare that Labour are planning a draconian reform of employee rights with “plans to give Trade Unions a stranglehold on workplaces,” alleging that small businesses will be hardest hit, and the minimum wage will be hiked. In 2020, when campaigning for the Labour Leadership Keir Starmer said “We walk with the trade unions”, but perhaps he has changed. Labour promises to be pro-business and pro- employee, a circle hard to square perhaps if new rights have real cost to businesses. As to current strikes, the BMA on behalf of junior doctors declares it is holding out for the 35% pay rise they say they deserve, but which Government says is absurd. And Wes Streeting for Labour has ruled that level out too. What pay rise Labour have fully costed in for the doctors is unknown. It will be interesting too if current rail disputes go away easily.
Broadcasters and other commentators also now are talking about the silence by politicians about Brexit as if that is still a subject. It is not: it stands for the British exit from the EU which has of course been completed.There is however a very wide body of people who wish to influence events to lead ultimately to a rejoining of the EU. The Liberals embrace that, as do a lot of Conservative ex MPs, and as do many in Labour. They used to be called Remainers. But they need a new name, perhaps “Rejoiners”, as they certainly do not want to remain as things are. How concerted their efforts as a group have been to ensure Rishi Sunak, an ex Brexiteer, and the Conservatives are discredited because they implemented Brexit, following the 2016 Referendum requiring Brexit, is speculative. But for example, writers, especially for the Financial Times, the Economist, the Guardian and The Observer, never waste an opportunity to despair of Brexit.
The damage really done by Brexit is unknown, and the damage in the future remains speculative, but as of now it pales into irrelevance compared to the pandemic and today’s wars and their consequences. Perhaps too now we should call the once Brexiteers “Bremainers”. Labour is right to declare a wish to improve trading and other relationships with the EU, such improvement being potentially good. But the EU, through Michel Barnier, once chief negotiator, is already laying down ground rules for discussions, reaffirming “no cake and eating it”.
So, the issue of the EU and the possibility of ceding sovereignty again to Brussels and others will be back, as the Rejoiners see the chance to bring Rejoining front and centre into British politics, remembering that Keir Starmer was once a most ardent Remainer but now declares himself not to be a Rejoiner, ruling out both acceding to the Customs Union and rejoining.
THE WORLD OF TRANS AND OTHER SUCH MINORITY CAUSES
The evangelists for transexuals are getting more vocal. The trans debates have been headline material recently. JK Rowling dismisses Labour’s stance so far, as she defends women’s rights against those who would deny single sex space. But recently too the topic has been creeping back, Keir Starmer now having reformed his position and asserts biological differences, promising to respect female spaces. But embedded attitudes will be hard to shift, such as the NHS insistence on their approach of prioritising men who say they are women but retain male genitals, over biological women.
A report in the Times highlighted the problem: four biological women nurses are having to resort to legal action as at the Darlington Memorial Hospital where they work, they are forced to change clothes in the presence of a declared trans woman nurse, called Rose, parading his/her genitals in the changing room. Management at the hospital are accused of being threatening and intimidating towards the nurses because they raised concerns about the transgender identity policy, being the policy of the NHS. Nurses were terrified to complain. The reaction of County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust management to some 26 nurses writing that they were concerned at sharing facilities with a biological male was apparently that they should get “educated” and “compromise”. The Times front page has headlined “ Labour plan for changing gender with less evidence”, making getting a Gender Recognition Certificate possibly easier. Will the NHS policy get changed as the Tories require? Despite Keir Starmer’s reversal on the issue, Labour’s shadow education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson apparently has said on broadcast media that a biological male who has such a certificate stating they are a woman then they can use female toilets, despite having male genitals. All this shows the topic is very live as a real concern and that after the election the muddle may become heated again. We could be hearing a lot more from J K Rowling and her many ardent followers.
And yet further, as to schools, Labour has said for example it will review the Conservative education policy about how gender identity is taught in schools, where that policy is now clear guidance about biological genders. It is reported that Labour will ban trans conversion therapy, although the Cass report said that such a ban is fraught with difficulty. And Rosie Duffield, a Labour MP, still writes about being gaslighted by Keir Starmer and the Labour party for her trans views, which mirror those of JK Rowling, that is not anti-trans but wishing to balance women’s rights and trans rights fairly. This topic will run and run after the election perhaps, but it is a petty distraction which the media love to hype.
After the election will the pro-Palestinian and antisemitic elements of the Labour party and relevant extremist groups apply more pressure to get British pro-Israel and anti-Hamas policy reversed? And will they get traction? To date the Labour manifesto is clear that a Palestine State should be recognised in the context of a peace solution with an independent Israel.
What other “minority topics” will be reenergised after the election to pressurise the new government? Will anti-colonialists renew efforts to rewrite history, cancelling the British Empire? Will reparations for historic slavery require a louder voice?
AND BACK TO THE MEDIA
For the media changing to a Labour Government is in effect done. The big top stories of the day are about gaffs and scandal as always, not the important stuff. That focus of the media allows Labour and other parties to avoid hard testing on what matters. The running scandal is betting on the date of the election. If Tory insiders with knowledge of the proposed July date which was announced made a bit on it before announcement, that is appalling. So too, if the several Met policemen operating in Westminster who are alleged to have made such bets had such knowledge, then they deserve stiff penalties. But the question of what knowledge bet placers had is possibly not clear cut: however, they are all guilty as usual without trial in the court of the media. We got used to that of course during Covid. Politicians too bay for blood as it suits them as innocence presumptions are discarded at will.
While the Institute of Fiscal Studies is respectable, sometimes such bodies are given too much weight. But are they being taken seriously at all by the media when they make such damning statements about the Labour and Conservative manifestos offering “thin gruel” to the public?
Then one has to wonder how much thought goes into the opinions scattered around by broadcasting journalists. On 25 June, a BBC journalist specialising in immigration was interviewed by a BBC newsreader. That expert BBC journalist described the immigration dilemmas as “The question is to get the balance right between immigration to meet the needs of the country versus policing the borders”. Is it? Surely the balance is not between legal and illegal immigration. The balance required is in legal immigration between the numbers needed to get the country the right skills against the social and other consequences of too many immigrants creating pressures on infrastructure, services, cultures etc. Illegal immigration, small compared to legal, is a separate matter where illegality needs to be stopped and borders protected balanced against observing asylum laws and morality and human kindness. Experience is that so often the media throw out somewhat glib and unthought through opinions which in effect are misinformation. Laziness or even incompetence perhaps?
It would be helpful if the media, in the last few days left before voting, could acquire a sense of proportion and truly hold political feet to the fire on the conspiracy of silence, or will the gaslighting of the British people continue? It is interesting how the BBC adore Gary Lineker and his football pundit colleagues, who say they tell it how it is, even if in their view it is that England football is, in their words, “shit”. But on the other hand, they also adore their own news journalists who tell it more how it is not. The media kingmakers must do better.
