A culture-war bogeyman?(Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
This week, I witnessed a Twitter row between commentators about whether the UK is governed by an out-of-touch liberal elite. The subsequent discussion was heavily dominated by middle-aged men with solidly middle-class English names like Matt, Dominic, Philip, Andrew and David. As usual with discussions about Britain’s elites, nobody involved was willing to admit they might be part of one.
The pretext was the publication of Matthew Goodwin’s Values, Voice, and Virtue, which argues that Britain is now ruled by a class of university-educated, urban-dwelling, liberal cosmopolitans, heedlessly imposing their luxury beliefs about race, gender, and Gary Lineker upon everybody else. While working-class people are supposed to be fondling their Union Jacks lovingly, worrying about mass immigration and looking baffled when you call them “cis”, Britain’s institutions have allegedly been captured by a bunch of Oxbridge-educated she/her types who equate any disagreement with fascism, and who are gripped with existential dread whenever they glance at their post-Brexit blue passports on their way to the Italian lakes.
I’ve had many brushes with exactly this type of horror show, and I agree that they are overrepresented in certain sectors, such as academia and NGOs. Still, I am not sure I agree that the ranks of the elite are brimming with them generally. And neither does Goodwin, at least sometimes. In his book, he alternates between the safety of a relatively banal motte (our institutions are dominated by the professional-managerial class), and the exhilaration of a much more controversial bailey (our institutions throng with radical progressives, calling for compulsory pronoun rounds and telling anyone who dislikes mass immigration that they’re a Nazi).
In a more sober moment, Goodwin acknowledges that “these radical progressives are a smaller group within the new elite”. Much of the time, though, he equates the radical part with the elite whole. In The Sun, for instance, he writes that: “Routinely, the New Elite demand things which signal their status to other elites, such as open borders, a relaxed approach to dealing with the small boats, or the sexualisation of children, which they will not have to suffer the effects of themselves.” In his book, meanwhile, he writes that “By portraying their political opponents as an assortment of fascists, racists and close-minded reactionaries, the new elite seek to shut down the conversation and exclude them altogether”.
Whatever the new elite is, I’m probably a member of it. I went to Oxford and then made a career out of talking about whether the external world really exists independently of the mind or not, so I don’t think there is any way out for me on this. The majority of my university contemporaries are now at the peak of successful and lucrative senior careers. To my knowledge, only one person from my college year group is unemployed — and that’s Dominic Cummings. The idea that any of these people sit around performatively extolling the joys of open borders or the sexualisation of children to each other is simply not true.
Today, most of them work long hours in finance, business, the civil service, or the law. They earn large amounts of money, live in nice houses cleaned by other people, and send their children to private schools. They aren’t on Twitter; they don’t have the time or inclination. They are often cultural philistines and rarely talk about politics. They are as baffled as most of the rest of the country about the ideological capture of major institutions, and just as disconcerted.
Back at university, in the early Nineties, most of these people were not protesting the poll tax or joining Greenpeace. They were drinking pints until they were sick, watching Neighbours all day in the JCR, and taking movement instructions from the jukebox (sit down for “Sit Down”, jump around for “Jump Around”). Lads from up North were pretending to be Liam Gallagher; boys from the South were evenly split between Damon Albarn and Sebastian Flyte. There were hardly any girls, and their (our) sexual activity was obsessed over pruriently. Activist types were roundly laughed at, ambitious types decried as hacks. Most people were moral relativists but couldn’t say why. The Bosnian war was raging and I don’t recall a single conversation about it. The only newspaper columnist I regularly read was Mystic Meg.
Thatcherism was on the way out and New Labour on the way in. As Goodwin notes, there was also a “depoliticisation” as Right and Left alternatives merged. If the neoliberalism of those years did anything for my peers, it loosened the bonds of group identity but put nothing else in their place. It made every kind of serious political effort something to be laughed at. This political and moral apathy, I think, is still the dominant tendency of the liberal elite in the UK, accompanied by an ironising and distancing humour gained from watching too much Fantasy Football League or Never Mind the Buzzcocks at a formative age.
It is not that neoliberalism made the new elite woke, then, but that most of them never really had an overt politics at all. The middle-aged, middle-class version of British masculinity inherited from that period dictates that there’s something faintly embarrassing about being seen to care strongly about any sociocultural issues, let alone anything as fraught as race, immigration or gender identity. This version of the elite is not anti-tradition — it just doesn’t positively value it. It is not, as Goodwin claims, particularly “supportive of abortion, homosexuality, casual sex, prostitution, divorce, gender equality and immigration”, but rather mostly indifferent. And it is not intolerant of political disagreements; it’s just that people don’t really have them at dinner parties.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
In other words, I think it’s simply wrong to imply that the majority of the liberal elite are now rampantly woke. The culture wars don’t need any more stoking. When it comes to traditional working-class values, assuming there still are any, most of the elite are in no man’s land, not enemy trenches. Their political inarticulacy has made the organisations they run ripe for power grabs but they are not directly waging any war.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI think this article makes some good points. However it fails to mention the key reason why staff are so afraid to stand up to their activist colleagues, is that the legal system is very much on the side of the activists thanks to misguided Equalities legislation of this country and how it has effectively removed equality before the law.
I’d be more than happy to call out a white male colleague who was incompetent but I wouldn’t dare challenge a female colleague of an ethnic minority, because if a dispute escalated, I fear I’d be fired in an instant if they were willing to weaponise their protected characteristics, because they have a legal privilege that is denied to myself and others. Though it should be noted, that many of the worst offenders in this new legal regime are not those with protected characteristics themselves but those who use the law to build up networks of patronage and privilege by abusing them. Shaping institutions to their ideological biases by using the discriminatory power they have under the law to hire and fire without merit.
It is an irony of ridiculous proportions that in order to fight invisible privileges (which in truth are nothing more than socioeconomic disparities with no clear discriminatory basis) dreamt of by left wing academia, the solution has been literally to reintroduce the kind of unequal legal privileges which liberal democracies fought so hard to expel from society due to their pernicious effects.
I think to dismiss this issue as just another facet of the culture war is misguided. If there is no equality before the law the very concept of a stable legal order is undermined. Look at the increasingly febrile atmosphere of American politics. If that becomes the case here, a culture war will be the least of our worries.
“these radical progressives are a smaller group within the new elite”.
The size of the radical group is less important than the ferventness of the members radicalness. The elites are mostly Professional Managerial Class, but those folks are mostly weakly political technocrats with little ideological spine. The radicals are religious fundamentalists who view every slight as a heresy against their new god. There’s a reason the PMCs have folded like the cheap suits they are — we educated them to be bureaucrats not heroes.
I think the fundamental issue that Stock does sort of pinpoint but doesn’t really elaborate on is that it isn’t her generation who are the issue, it is my generation that are.
Stock is around 51, so she’s gen x, and gen x were raised and socialised and educated prior to the information revolution. I am nearing 40, and the oldest millennials are now 42-43, so we are of an age to be slowly but surely taking over the elite managerial positions of society from Stock’s generation, the oldest of whom are fast reaching retirement.
Stock is unfortunately in a poor position to elucidate why this is, because her childhood and adolescence was very different to that of my generation. We were raised with a combination of a new approach to parenting that sought to coax us to do better by rewarding everything and making everyone a winner, in spite of this running counter to the indifference and unfairness we would inevitably have to manage, a new level of paranoia about children’s safety that led to us being less free to experience the world without reams of parental bubbble wrapping cushioning us, followed by an unprecedented change to information technology that our parents didn’t have the experience to shelter us from that gave us access to more information than ever with little resilience and experience with adversity to shelter ourselves.
Whilst the earliest parts of my childhood bore strong similarities to those of Stock, by my teenaged years, mobile phones and the internet had begun to dominate social interactions, and the sexualisation had gone off the deep end, with everyone suddenly clamouring to label themselves as bisexual, and a teenaged pregnancy epidemic snowballing in seemingly every school. Then, before we were really emotionally matured and adult, 9/11 happened, and we were thrust into a world that suddenly seemed to be much scarier and more extreme with less resilience and maturity than previous generations. It is little wonder we were such easy targets for radicalisation when we reached universities, and those who excelled with those ideas had little incentive to change perspectives as they aged and climbed up workplace hierarchies.
Thank you. You have helped me better understand my children!
I suspect the sharpest division is between Gen Z university graduates and all others. Even Millenials got off lightly. Academics say they noticed the change in their students about 2013 – possibly reflecting changes in social media around 2009. Today about 13% of the UK population is “woke” but 30% of those born after the mid 90s and over 50% of Gen Z students. It is the biggest generational shift in values since the 1960s. (Back then we used to say “never trust anyone over 30”; it is perhaps poetic justice we are now on the receiving end. I find myself empathising more and more with my grandparents whose horror at our views and values I found amusing at the time.)
I’d agree that millennials as a generation are stradddling a deep chasm of changing values, we have one foot in each kind of childhood, and our exact age does make a fair bit of difference as to how much weight goes on each foot. For example, I was 13-14 when everyone started getting mobile phones, but for a millennial just five years younger, that would have occurred when they were 8-9, and there’s a massive difference in cognitive development in those five years.
I tend to think about how much time has mellowed many in my generation politically though, and live in hope that the 50% figure is more demonstrative of the naivety and desire to be radical that typifies youth that will drop as they age and come to terms with the real world outside of education, but I suspect that we’re going to be stuck with a higher level of wokeness in them for the long term.
(Also known as m3pc7q3ixe apparently.)
I agree. The current pushback against woke excesses may last a year or two but the “progressive” grip on education and HR departments suggests that woke attitudes will reassert themselves thereafter even more vigorously. But it could take different forms. If one is into historical precedents then three possibilities are
1/ Radical change then mellowing cf. 1960s
2/ Assertion of a new rigid morality that lasts a long time cf. rise of evangelicals in 1820s and 1830s leading to Victorian bourgeois morality 1840s-1960s
3/ Abrasive and intolerant puritans trigger violent politics cf. original puritans 1590s-1630s leading to the English Civil War in 1640s.
If in Britain we suffer only a rerun of the 1960s I will be content. I fear that in the US the third possibility is a real risk.
That makes good sense and I share your misgivings. The careful entrenchment of specific attitudes into the mainstream discourse does seem to be more of a feature than a bug.
Also, thanks for clarifying the unusual “handle”: nice that the mods (or other crepuscular agents) gave you your identity back!
Very nicely presented and superbly chosen historical examples. I agree with your speculations on UK and US outcomes.
That makes good sense and I share your misgivings. The careful entrenchment of specific attitudes into the mainstream discourse does seem to be more of a feature than a bug.
Also, thanks for clarifying the unusual “handle”: nice that the mods (or other crepuscular agents) gave you your identity back!
Very nicely presented and superbly chosen historical examples. I agree with your speculations on UK and US outcomes.
Agreed about the chasm. As a Millennial born in the early 90’s, I would likely identify with older Zoomers more than older Millennials and I don’t doubt our upbringings would be more similar.
I’d say there’s reason to hope though. People aged between 25-34 are the most lockdown sceptic age group and I dare say, more likely to believe in free speech, thoughts and action than their younger Zoomer counterparts. If there’s one thing I can remember about my youth, our respect and trust for authority was minimal, we just didn’t make a big thing of it.
(Also known as m3pc7q3ixe apparently.)
I agree. The current pushback against woke excesses may last a year or two but the “progressive” grip on education and HR departments suggests that woke attitudes will reassert themselves thereafter even more vigorously. But it could take different forms. If one is into historical precedents then three possibilities are
1/ Radical change then mellowing cf. 1960s
2/ Assertion of a new rigid morality that lasts a long time cf. rise of evangelicals in 1820s and 1830s leading to Victorian bourgeois morality 1840s-1960s
3/ Abrasive and intolerant puritans trigger violent politics cf. original puritans 1590s-1630s leading to the English Civil War in 1640s.
If in Britain we suffer only a rerun of the 1960s I will be content. I fear that in the US the third possibility is a real risk.
Agreed about the chasm. As a Millennial born in the early 90’s, I would likely identify with older Zoomers more than older Millennials and I don’t doubt our upbringings would be more similar.
I’d say there’s reason to hope though. People aged between 25-34 are the most lockdown sceptic age group and I dare say, more likely to believe in free speech, thoughts and action than their younger Zoomer counterparts. If there’s one thing I can remember about my youth, our respect and trust for authority was minimal, we just didn’t make a big thing of it.
The other thing that happened was called Blair. He wanted everybody to go to university. This is the real disaster. Those who graduate expect to have something to look forward to, especially if they are in debt. The original aim of university was to train young people to become managers – not pen-pushers or key-clickers. Now the managerial level is disappearing.
What is there to do with your special training but try to be a better key-clicker or photographer or video maker? You spend hours on the internet doing so-called research, find a few interesting stats, draw a couple of graphs and what do you get? A Social Scientist. Of no use to man nor beast.
Sadly it was John Major who initiated the enormous expansion of Universities NOT the wretched Blair creature.
ahh ” Corporal” Major ( apologies to The Household Cavalry!) whose razor sharp mind, and towering financial achievements were limited to failing his arithmetic tests to be a London bus conductor…
Don’t forget the ‘hanky- panky’ with Edwina Currie!!
” Oh yes” as he would say!
” Oh yes” as he would say!
And knocking off Currie.
” Oh yes,” as exciting as the cones hotline, I imagine..
” Oh yes,” as exciting as the cones hotline, I imagine..
Don’t forget the ‘hanky- panky’ with Edwina Currie!!
And knocking off Currie.
Moved centre stage under Blair. I worked in further education throughout his regime and it was obvious that huge numbers of unsuitable candidates were being pushed onto degree courses on false terms. The claim was always that a university education improved earning potential. In reality this was only true for certain courses and a limited number of professions.
I appreciate a skilled worker far more.
I appreciate a skilled worker far more.
ahh ” Corporal” Major ( apologies to The Household Cavalry!) whose razor sharp mind, and towering financial achievements were limited to failing his arithmetic tests to be a London bus conductor…
Moved centre stage under Blair. I worked in further education throughout his regime and it was obvious that huge numbers of unsuitable candidates were being pushed onto degree courses on false terms. The claim was always that a university education improved earning potential. In reality this was only true for certain courses and a limited number of professions.
I don’t think the original aim of universities was actually to train young people to be managers. And nor should it ever be. It should teach them speciliased knowledge in their chosen field and develop their thinking skills so they can put into practice what they have learnt in real situations with some confidence and authority. It should also equip students to continue to learn after university – many fields develop so quickly (technology) that you simply cannot rely only on university learning after several years.
University should also make you aware how much you don’t know – i.e. push you far enough along the Dunning-Kruger curve that you realise that you aren’t an expert.
Unfortunately, I suspect that there’s a large chunk of students from modern universities who are still at the point on the Dunning-Kruger curve where they think they are experts.
In my experience, management should not be seen as a career or something you can be trained for and move straight into. Rather, you should get some real hands-on experience in a field before doing any management so you have a proper feel for and understanding of the work.
Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell would think otherwise.
But those aren’t unversities are they ? Office training colleges for the Armed Forces.
The forces are in a class of their own and if they have to use their skills it would br crucial for our country.
The forces are in a class of their own and if they have to use their skills it would br crucial for our country.
But those aren’t unversities are they ? Office training colleges for the Armed Forces.
A lot of good workers are promoted into management above their skills. Not all have management skills no matter how good their work is.
Born at the cutting edge of the baby boom (1946), I grew up with the quaint idea that the whole point of a first degree was to give students a broad liberal education and teach them to think and debate ideas. We strongly resisted the idea that undergraduate courses were meant to give us job skills in specialist fields but, alas, we lost the argument. There was nothing radical about what we expected of our universities. It was what our parents and grandparents had expected of their universities, too. They routinely earned B.A.s in The Classics before they went on to earn degrees, diplomas or other qualifications in medicine, law, engineering, teaching, social work or whatever. Now I’m pretty sure you can spend three or four years at university and emerge with a degree that makes you an first rate critic of basket-weaving but unable to weave a basket yourself.
Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell would think otherwise.
A lot of good workers are promoted into management above their skills. Not all have management skills no matter how good their work is.
Born at the cutting edge of the baby boom (1946), I grew up with the quaint idea that the whole point of a first degree was to give students a broad liberal education and teach them to think and debate ideas. We strongly resisted the idea that undergraduate courses were meant to give us job skills in specialist fields but, alas, we lost the argument. There was nothing radical about what we expected of our universities. It was what our parents and grandparents had expected of their universities, too. They routinely earned B.A.s in The Classics before they went on to earn degrees, diplomas or other qualifications in medicine, law, engineering, teaching, social work or whatever. Now I’m pretty sure you can spend three or four years at university and emerge with a degree that makes you an first rate critic of basket-weaving but unable to weave a basket yourself.
The original aim of university most definitely was not to train people to become managers (perish the thought).
So, what else can they do with their degrees? The Civil Service perhaps – another waste of space.
What do they “do” with them? You mean apart from the many obvious examples of the degrees being required training and knowledge for a profession? I guess they enjoy broadening their minds and learning deeply about a subject they enjoy.
Hopefully but a lot of them appear more concerned with woke policies unfortunately.
Hopefully but a lot of them appear more concerned with woke policies unfortunately.
Fodder for NGO’s/international development sector.
Yeah the civil service or some other public entity. They will reward them for their degrees but not their work. The private sector is what earns the money and prospers the economy not the public sector which is often a cushy ride with gold plated pensions taken from our taxes.
What do they “do” with them? You mean apart from the many obvious examples of the degrees being required training and knowledge for a profession? I guess they enjoy broadening their minds and learning deeply about a subject they enjoy.
Fodder for NGO’s/international development sector.
Yeah the civil service or some other public entity. They will reward them for their degrees but not their work. The private sector is what earns the money and prospers the economy not the public sector which is often a cushy ride with gold plated pensions taken from our taxes.
So, what else can they do with their degrees? The Civil Service perhaps – another waste of space.
I’m sure the odd social scientist is fine, but you are totally right about too many going to university and earning pointless degrees. When junior management trainee jobs at fast food outlets require a degree, something has gone badly wrong.
Far better to focus on apprenticeships and teach real skills. It also saves the Young from excessive debt they can’t often afford.
The German system offers parallel track degrees, one track is academic, the other more practical, but both involve university/college attendance, and both award degrees. Then there is the ausbildung, or apprenticeship scheme, which offers excellent practical training for professional careers. It would never work here. There is too much class snobbery towards “trade” and little appetite for the kind of funding and organisation required to make it work.
The German system offers parallel track degrees, one track is academic, the other more practical, but both involve university/college attendance, and both award degrees. Then there is the ausbildung, or apprenticeship scheme, which offers excellent practical training for professional careers. It would never work here. There is too much class snobbery towards “trade” and little appetite for the kind of funding and organisation required to make it work.
There are quite a few university educated idiots in the workforce today. A lot of them don’t work well as they spend their time dreaming that they should be doing something better because of their degree. I have worked with them and know the type. One of them was studying under the table hoping to get something better but wan’t bothered about doing a good days work for his pay. Better to join the public sector as they reward you for your degree but not your work.
Like Blair, Obama pushed ‘university for all’ but one can’t help think that he was saying ‘university for all blacks’. Clearly, he wanted ‘improved lives’ for the black community, but a one-size or one-type of education didn’t and doesn’t fit everyone. In the 1970’s more black kids got into schools via ‘affirmative action’ (think DA Alvin Bragg, Trump’s Tormentor and pundit Joy Reid both AA Harvard). Many kids never made it through higher education programs for lack of preparation – in a few instances some never made it back to campus a they were shot or imprisoned during breaks. Obama never mentioned vocational education or how to ensure better college preparation, nor has he addressed (or cared) about the issue in his retirement. He among others in the black community have failed their own youth.
Sadly it was John Major who initiated the enormous expansion of Universities NOT the wretched Blair creature.
I don’t think the original aim of universities was actually to train young people to be managers. And nor should it ever be. It should teach them speciliased knowledge in their chosen field and develop their thinking skills so they can put into practice what they have learnt in real situations with some confidence and authority. It should also equip students to continue to learn after university – many fields develop so quickly (technology) that you simply cannot rely only on university learning after several years.
University should also make you aware how much you don’t know – i.e. push you far enough along the Dunning-Kruger curve that you realise that you aren’t an expert.
Unfortunately, I suspect that there’s a large chunk of students from modern universities who are still at the point on the Dunning-Kruger curve where they think they are experts.
In my experience, management should not be seen as a career or something you can be trained for and move straight into. Rather, you should get some real hands-on experience in a field before doing any management so you have a proper feel for and understanding of the work.
The original aim of university most definitely was not to train people to become managers (perish the thought).
I’m sure the odd social scientist is fine, but you are totally right about too many going to university and earning pointless degrees. When junior management trainee jobs at fast food outlets require a degree, something has gone badly wrong.
Far better to focus on apprenticeships and teach real skills. It also saves the Young from excessive debt they can’t often afford.
There are quite a few university educated idiots in the workforce today. A lot of them don’t work well as they spend their time dreaming that they should be doing something better because of their degree. I have worked with them and know the type. One of them was studying under the table hoping to get something better but wan’t bothered about doing a good days work for his pay. Better to join the public sector as they reward you for your degree but not your work.
Like Blair, Obama pushed ‘university for all’ but one can’t help think that he was saying ‘university for all blacks’. Clearly, he wanted ‘improved lives’ for the black community, but a one-size or one-type of education didn’t and doesn’t fit everyone. In the 1970’s more black kids got into schools via ‘affirmative action’ (think DA Alvin Bragg, Trump’s Tormentor and pundit Joy Reid both AA Harvard). Many kids never made it through higher education programs for lack of preparation – in a few instances some never made it back to campus a they were shot or imprisoned during breaks. Obama never mentioned vocational education or how to ensure better college preparation, nor has he addressed (or cared) about the issue in his retirement. He among others in the black community have failed their own youth.
The boomers were the woke generation of their day: the outright rejection of their elders’ values and the social and cultural revolution they instigated bears many similarities with the present situation. And of course the 60s upheaval was no passing fad – it led to permanent and far-reaching changes in society, just as the woke revolution will in turn become similarly entrenched.
And now the boomers are on the receiving end of the very same treatment they were meting out to the wartime generation in the 60s: they are being blamed for destroying the environment, the housing crisis etc. by the woke, who are just as convinced as the boomers were that they have all the answers. And they in turn will become just as discredited and hated.
I fear we doomed to live in a world of permanent revolution, with the cycle endlessly repeating itself.
There’s merit to your view in regards to things changing around 2013. I was at university from 2010-2013 and of course towards the end of my final year, Margaret Thatcher died. Being one of the more openly conservative people on the politics course, I was invited to a debate about her legacy. I was used to being in the minority, but could still be friends with and go out for drinks with hardline socialists, pro-EU liberals etc. In this debate though (mostly attended by first year undergrads), according to the audience, I wasn’t just wrong as an opinion, but also in a moral way too. Alas, things seem to have only got worse since then.
It just shows you how deceived people can be.
It just shows you how deceived people can be.
Should be noted though that even in GenZ 60% don’t go to university. In time too the most radical of GenZ students will be working, have a house and a mortgage and become more conservative, especially in relation to the students emerging then. Was ever thus
I’d agree that millennials as a generation are stradddling a deep chasm of changing values, we have one foot in each kind of childhood, and our exact age does make a fair bit of difference as to how much weight goes on each foot. For example, I was 13-14 when everyone started getting mobile phones, but for a millennial just five years younger, that would have occurred when they were 8-9, and there’s a massive difference in cognitive development in those five years.
I tend to think about how much time has mellowed many in my generation politically though, and live in hope that the 50% figure is more demonstrative of the naivety and desire to be radical that typifies youth that will drop as they age and come to terms with the real world outside of education, but I suspect that we’re going to be stuck with a higher level of wokeness in them for the long term.
The other thing that happened was called Blair. He wanted everybody to go to university. This is the real disaster. Those who graduate expect to have something to look forward to, especially if they are in debt. The original aim of university was to train young people to become managers – not pen-pushers or key-clickers. Now the managerial level is disappearing.
What is there to do with your special training but try to be a better key-clicker or photographer or video maker? You spend hours on the internet doing so-called research, find a few interesting stats, draw a couple of graphs and what do you get? A Social Scientist. Of no use to man nor beast.
The boomers were the woke generation of their day: the outright rejection of their elders’ values and the social and cultural revolution they instigated bears many similarities with the present situation. And of course the 60s upheaval was no passing fad – it led to permanent and far-reaching changes in society, just as the woke revolution will in turn become similarly entrenched.
And now the boomers are on the receiving end of the very same treatment they were meting out to the wartime generation in the 60s: they are being blamed for destroying the environment, the housing crisis etc. by the woke, who are just as convinced as the boomers were that they have all the answers. And they in turn will become just as discredited and hated.
I fear we doomed to live in a world of permanent revolution, with the cycle endlessly repeating itself.
There’s merit to your view in regards to things changing around 2013. I was at university from 2010-2013 and of course towards the end of my final year, Margaret Thatcher died. Being one of the more openly conservative people on the politics course, I was invited to a debate about her legacy. I was used to being in the minority, but could still be friends with and go out for drinks with hardline socialists, pro-EU liberals etc. In this debate though (mostly attended by first year undergrads), according to the audience, I wasn’t just wrong as an opinion, but also in a moral way too. Alas, things seem to have only got worse since then.
Should be noted though that even in GenZ 60% don’t go to university. In time too the most radical of GenZ students will be working, have a house and a mortgage and become more conservative, especially in relation to the students emerging then. Was ever thus
I’m not sure I totally buy that. Looking back to my Dad he was able to walk out of school as an unqualified 15 year old and walk straight into production lines for secure work. Sure – when he was alive he would have happily taken issue with anyone who thought that a 1960s production line was some gilded existence. But my parents (I am I would guess 5-10 years older than you) had an environment that simply is not available to the young today and the production lines, cheap housing, strong unions, cheap oil, suspicion of debt (personal and public) and the like aren’t coming back. And, of course my Dad was not competing for work with the East European reserve army of labour. It just feels at times as if the young now are expected to come of age in an environment that simply doesn’t exist.
For all the criticism of the young today I would make two observations. Firstly, the society they are confronted with is hardly their fault. And secondly I do feel that there should be some sort of ‘soft landing’ between the ages of (say) 18-21. For sure the current ‘student experience’ is not good. 30 years ago the student experience was about the end of adolescence and entry to independent living, now our universities too often are a gateway to an adolescence that extends into people’s 30s. If there is no route to a secure transition to adulthood then juvenilisation is what is left.
We saw some of this in covid where there was an expectation that the state would bubble wrap us. Compare that to AIDS in the 1980s.
Where I very strongly agree with you is about online technology – indeed I’m rather surprised that Stock doesn’t discuss that because it seems to me to be critical. Your comment about my generation’s naivety on the advance of internet is, if anything, too kind. Looking back we should have seen the very obvious downside coming and we certainly should have seen big tech for what it is. Worse, some people seemed to think that what you call ‘bubble wrapping’ was totally unnecessary online. If anything I am quite happy to say that I am, for now, bubble-wrapping my daughter online. I do believe that my cohort rather let yours down. I am very glad that neither I nor my daughter had to face the advance of the internet in the way your cohort did. As you rightly say if not my cohort then who else would really give thought to online things.
I would also, gently, take some issue with Stock about my generation’s politicisation at university. We had a short-lived anti-globalisation movement. We took issue with mass migration and globalised corporate interests as being a race to the bottom. I think we were right, we just gave up being right and started tapping our keyboards.
Interesting, but i’m not at all sure you’re disagreeing with AL Crowe. You both seem to be pretty much on the same page, albeit from slightly different perspectives.
I’ve actually made another comment further down the thread where I actually point out that the sheer number of degrees is essentially devaluing them.
So I think Steve is right, that we’re concerned about the same things, we’re just aiming our comments t different facets of the same situation. I do think that wokeness is attractive to the young precisely because it enables them to keep blaming the world around them, but once we’re adults, the buck has to stop with us for making the best of life as it is rather than daydreaming about distributive justice.
You were right indeed but we need a bit more than just being right to change the way our country is toppling.
Interesting, but i’m not at all sure you’re disagreeing with AL Crowe. You both seem to be pretty much on the same page, albeit from slightly different perspectives.
I’ve actually made another comment further down the thread where I actually point out that the sheer number of degrees is essentially devaluing them.
So I think Steve is right, that we’re concerned about the same things, we’re just aiming our comments t different facets of the same situation. I do think that wokeness is attractive to the young precisely because it enables them to keep blaming the world around them, but once we’re adults, the buck has to stop with us for making the best of life as it is rather than daydreaming about distributive justice.
You were right indeed but we need a bit more than just being right to change the way our country is toppling.
Great insight…see Jonathan Haidt for US experience a decade later.
Simon Sinek made a very entertaining account of that same point in this interview:
https://youtu.be/hER0Qp6QJNU
Great link, thanks. An accurate and entertaining dissection of the toxicity of the world we ‘adults’ have created (albeit with the best of intentions) for our children to have to deal with. The (student?) audience clearly identified with his observations.
Great link, thanks. An accurate and entertaining dissection of the toxicity of the world we ‘adults’ have created (albeit with the best of intentions) for our children to have to deal with. The (student?) audience clearly identified with his observations.
Thank you. You have helped me better understand my children!
I suspect the sharpest division is between Gen Z university graduates and all others. Even Millenials got off lightly. Academics say they noticed the change in their students about 2013 – possibly reflecting changes in social media around 2009. Today about 13% of the UK population is “woke” but 30% of those born after the mid 90s and over 50% of Gen Z students. It is the biggest generational shift in values since the 1960s. (Back then we used to say “never trust anyone over 30”; it is perhaps poetic justice we are now on the receiving end. I find myself empathising more and more with my grandparents whose horror at our views and values I found amusing at the time.)
I’m not sure I totally buy that. Looking back to my Dad he was able to walk out of school as an unqualified 15 year old and walk straight into production lines for secure work. Sure – when he was alive he would have happily taken issue with anyone who thought that a 1960s production line was some gilded existence. But my parents (I am I would guess 5-10 years older than you) had an environment that simply is not available to the young today and the production lines, cheap housing, strong unions, cheap oil, suspicion of debt (personal and public) and the like aren’t coming back. And, of course my Dad was not competing for work with the East European reserve army of labour. It just feels at times as if the young now are expected to come of age in an environment that simply doesn’t exist.
For all the criticism of the young today I would make two observations. Firstly, the society they are confronted with is hardly their fault. And secondly I do feel that there should be some sort of ‘soft landing’ between the ages of (say) 18-21. For sure the current ‘student experience’ is not good. 30 years ago the student experience was about the end of adolescence and entry to independent living, now our universities too often are a gateway to an adolescence that extends into people’s 30s. If there is no route to a secure transition to adulthood then juvenilisation is what is left.
We saw some of this in covid where there was an expectation that the state would bubble wrap us. Compare that to AIDS in the 1980s.
Where I very strongly agree with you is about online technology – indeed I’m rather surprised that Stock doesn’t discuss that because it seems to me to be critical. Your comment about my generation’s naivety on the advance of internet is, if anything, too kind. Looking back we should have seen the very obvious downside coming and we certainly should have seen big tech for what it is. Worse, some people seemed to think that what you call ‘bubble wrapping’ was totally unnecessary online. If anything I am quite happy to say that I am, for now, bubble-wrapping my daughter online. I do believe that my cohort rather let yours down. I am very glad that neither I nor my daughter had to face the advance of the internet in the way your cohort did. As you rightly say if not my cohort then who else would really give thought to online things.
I would also, gently, take some issue with Stock about my generation’s politicisation at university. We had a short-lived anti-globalisation movement. We took issue with mass migration and globalised corporate interests as being a race to the bottom. I think we were right, we just gave up being right and started tapping our keyboards.
Great insight…see Jonathan Haidt for US experience a decade later.
Simon Sinek made a very entertaining account of that same point in this interview:
https://youtu.be/hER0Qp6QJNU
And the Bolsheviks were a tiny minority…Unfortunately, every time there is a push back – say the recent “free speech” on campus legislation, they bungle it. Frankly, the Tories do not understand what is happening and are easily legged over by the civil service, or are onboard with, what they are told, is being nice.
They have to fall the way they are now. My tory MP lives in cloud cuckoo land.
They have to fall the way they are now. My tory MP lives in cloud cuckoo land.
SRB Corps as in “sorbo rubber backbone”…
I think the fundamental issue that Stock does sort of pinpoint but doesn’t really elaborate on is that it isn’t her generation who are the issue, it is my generation that are.
Stock is around 51, so she’s gen x, and gen x were raised and socialised and educated prior to the information revolution. I am nearing 40, and the oldest millennials are now 42-43, so we are of an age to be slowly but surely taking over the elite managerial positions of society from Stock’s generation, the oldest of whom are fast reaching retirement.
Stock is unfortunately in a poor position to elucidate why this is, because her childhood and adolescence was very different to that of my generation. We were raised with a combination of a new approach to parenting that sought to coax us to do better by rewarding everything and making everyone a winner, in spite of this running counter to the indifference and unfairness we would inevitably have to manage, a new level of paranoia about children’s safety that led to us being less free to experience the world without reams of parental bubbble wrapping cushioning us, followed by an unprecedented change to information technology that our parents didn’t have the experience to shelter us from that gave us access to more information than ever with little resilience and experience with adversity to shelter ourselves.
Whilst the earliest parts of my childhood bore strong similarities to those of Stock, by my teenaged years, mobile phones and the internet had begun to dominate social interactions, and the sexualisation had gone off the deep end, with everyone suddenly clamouring to label themselves as bisexual, and a teenaged pregnancy epidemic snowballing in seemingly every school. Then, before we were really emotionally matured and adult, 9/11 happened, and we were thrust into a world that suddenly seemed to be much scarier and more extreme with less resilience and maturity than previous generations. It is little wonder we were such easy targets for radicalisation when we reached universities, and those who excelled with those ideas had little incentive to change perspectives as they aged and climbed up workplace hierarchies.
And the Bolsheviks were a tiny minority…Unfortunately, every time there is a push back – say the recent “free speech” on campus legislation, they bungle it. Frankly, the Tories do not understand what is happening and are easily legged over by the civil service, or are onboard with, what they are told, is being nice.
SRB Corps as in “sorbo rubber backbone”…
“the legal system is very much on the side of the activists thanks to misguided Equalities legislation of this country and how it has effectively removed equality before the law.”
Indeed, and one must ask the question why this wretched so-called Tory Government has done absolutely NOTHING to repeal this pernicious legislation, despite being ‘in power’ for more than a decade?
Perhaps they actually agree with it? In which case we should prepare for the destruction of our society as we know it.
They had a massive majority because of a promise of Brexit and have largely squandered it because of their wokery.
Spot on, well said Sir!
Spot on, well said Sir!
Have you ever looked at the names of those listed in The Telegraph as passing Bar finals? The percentage of those with ” British surnames is under 20%.
They had a massive majority because of a promise of Brexit and have largely squandered it because of their wokery.
Have you ever looked at the names of those listed in The Telegraph as passing Bar finals? The percentage of those with ” British surnames is under 20%.
I read the essay on James Mill published today in Unherd first and so it struck me that your observation on the pernicious effects of the Equalities legislation in providing for protected classes very much mirrors the separate legal systems of traditional Indian colonialism that James Mill railed against and argued in favour of equality of all races before the law. As I observed in the comments under that article the radicalism of James Mill in that respect has become regarded as deeply conservative and right wing while the inequalities of multicultural protected classes is regarded as progressive and philosophically virtuous rather than traditional conservative colonialism of the pre-James Mill approach. It highlights how meaningless the concepts of right and left and radical and conservative have become. Like the old white colonialist in India we have managed to erected a legal structure to advantage some races above others but in this case it is the native British that are disadvantaged.
Just on the implied ‘management’ challenge related to ethnic staff and the perceived inability to manage performance because of ‘fear’ of being labelled racist – good managers, following fair, transparent process, particularly about how you judge performance, won’t have this problem and will be appreciated by their staff. Poor managers will have problems.
We need to be a little less ‘snowflakely’ about what good management entails and requires. We’ll always find a v small cohort of work colleagues trying it on and using every angle they can to avoid their responsibilities.
I take it that you are not required to manage anyone.
He is still right about management though.
He is still right about management though.
It varies substantially by industry/sector. Some sectors, with high customer interaction, in particular are hugely game-able by bad actors. They know from experience that they can successfully appeal to HR and get the managerial decision overturned. It doesn’t take many cycles of that event to destroy competent management.
I take it that you are not required to manage anyone.
It varies substantially by industry/sector. Some sectors, with high customer interaction, in particular are hugely game-able by bad actors. They know from experience that they can successfully appeal to HR and get the managerial decision overturned. It doesn’t take many cycles of that event to destroy competent management.
“wouldn’t dare challenge a female colleague of an ethnic minority”
There is a substantial error here – you assume a) all ethnic minorities are “victims” and therefore protected and b) victimhood privileges are additive.
If you are Indian Hindu or (in smaller numbers) Vietnamese or Lankan, there are no privileges to being “ethnic”.
And, this lack of “victim privileges” is irrespective of male or female.
Thus, if you are an India female, you are fair game for racism AND sexism because even your women privileges don’t apply fully.
Similarly, if you are a lower class, non college educated deplorable white, you lack “victim privileges” – irrespective of male or female – as thousands of female white grooming gangs victims have found out in labour dominated councils (the party of choice, incidentally, for the vast majority of college educated, upper class women aged 25-30)
The labour councils wanted the votes over the sexual rights of the raped white girls. It figures.
The labour councils wanted the votes over the sexual rights of the raped white girls. It figures.
You make a valid point about how “… misguided Equalities legislation of this country … has effectively removed equality before the law.”
The infusion of human rights legislation into every facet of society by ‘human rights’ lawyers, coupled with the concomitant domination of law-making in this area by unaccountable judges who have trumped the sovereign process of parliamentary governance has not only undermined the foundations of democracy, but has served to invert the law so that it now serves minority rights at the expense of those of majorities. This inversion is an incredibly powerful weapon that has been ruthlessly exploited by activists, usually driven by Marxist ideals that divide the world into the oppressed and the oppressors. In a democratic system weakened by such diminution, even removal, of the rights of majorities, it is not surprising that those majorities find themselves increasingly powerless to fight back – not least because the new Woking Class (as distinct from the the former Liberal Elite) has infiltrated every nook and cranny, vertically and horizontally, of the fabric of our existence and social interaction.
I have great respect for Kathleen Stock and value her writing. But on this occasion I believe she has significantly understated the depth and breadth of the ‘woke’ revolution that has overtaken western civilisation.
You have nailed it.
You have nailed it.
It’s hilarious that the author of this piece is completely oblivious to her own membership in the liberal academic elite.
But doesn’t she say Whatever the new elite is, I’m probably a member of it.?
Preemptive plausible deniability for the inevitable suspicion.
She might as well have written “I know what you’re thinking but I’m not like that, honest.”
Right, so the fact she said she is part of it really meant she was completely oblivious to being in it but said that to throw you off the scent, even though she was oblivious to being the thing you say she was trying to pretend not to be part of.
Yes, it’s so clear now.
Right, so the fact she said she is part of it really meant she was completely oblivious to being in it but said that to throw you off the scent, even though she was oblivious to being the thing you say she was trying to pretend not to be part of.
Yes, it’s so clear now.
Perhaps a mistaken member of it because of privelege. She was saying that it doesn’t really exist amongst the so called elite. She is probably right and if she is then the source of it is somewhere else.
Preemptive plausible deniability for the inevitable suspicion.
She might as well have written “I know what you’re thinking but I’m not like that, honest.”
Perhaps a mistaken member of it because of privelege. She was saying that it doesn’t really exist amongst the so called elite. She is probably right and if she is then the source of it is somewhere else.
Perhaps you did not notice that she wrote this:-
“Whatever the new elite is, I’m probably a member of it. I went to Oxford and then made a career out of talking about whether the external world really exists independently of the mind or not, so I don’t think there is any way out for me on this.”
How very smug of her! But she is correct, there is NO redemption!
There is always redemption for the righteous once they see their failings as with the rest of us.
An admirable sentiment with which I must beg to disagree.
An admirable sentiment with which I must beg to disagree.
There is always redemption for the righteous once they see their failings as with the rest of us.
How very smug of her! But she is correct, there is NO redemption!
She was saying that they were not woke just rudderless without a passion to change things.
But doesn’t she say Whatever the new elite is, I’m probably a member of it.?
Perhaps you did not notice that she wrote this:-
“Whatever the new elite is, I’m probably a member of it. I went to Oxford and then made a career out of talking about whether the external world really exists independently of the mind or not, so I don’t think there is any way out for me on this.”
She was saying that they were not woke just rudderless without a passion to change things.
Indeed. As Neema Parvini points out in his seminal book “The Populist Delusion” culture is downstream of law. It is activists changing law (particularly under Blair, but not exclusively so) that has ruptured society beyond repair.
In summary the article takes the long way round to get to the fact that an affluent managerial class will always take the route of least resistance to career success. It is merely a question of financial and social incentives.
For some reason I have to latch onto a post to post myself, I can’t just start a new thread, so if this appears at odds with your post you know why.
The above article strikes me as not much more than a “Not me Guv” response to a book I’ve yet to read. However, the whole concept of ‘Woke” is intriguing. Sometimes our intellectuals delve to deeply into something. I don’t bother much about the science behind the fusion reactor known as the sun when I’m enjoying a sunny day. Or possibly more to the point if lying on the grass watching the clouds on such a sunny day, I find it amusing that the deeper mechanisms in me can identify the clouds as rabbits, faces etc. None of it is true, and I know that but I can accept the interpretation and enjoy it because it is harmless. However when I see a real rabbit, the mechanism works well. The nuts and bolts in terms of psychology of the Woke maybe interesting but more of interest is to my mind the wilful ignorance of the large real perception, if Ms Stock is to be believed, and how the elite keep their consciences quiet.
Trans ideology for a start is the driving force behind one new child abuse. Then we have Drag Queen Story time, which a major union (apparently) demands.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/773af654-d3b3-11ed-b1cd-5223fe349502?shareToken=ccd348dd761f2361f2c85c96819a145a
is it too going to be seen for what it also is, another form of child abuse?
Mentioning the P word seems to upset the Unherd moderation. How ironic
if the labelling of the facts is Unherd here while the argument for them
isn’t!
Drag Queen story time strikes me as being a shiny cover for Paedophilia. The fact that Labour is up to its neck in both these philosophies should not be surprising, at least if you have ever read this BBC article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378
Not that the Tories are blameless. The fact is the Tories are basically New Labour and the Labour Party an older Labour (circa 1970’s? That is the era of the article.)
Sometimes what you see is actually what you are getting, and the + in LBGTQIA+ perhaps really is then new love that dare not speak its name and Ms Stock and her ‘cohort’ prefer not to delve too deeply into discovering that?
Who would have thought after Savile that the BBC and our Establishment would not only willingly accept, but actually promote even worse abuse and in greater numbers. I wait with interest for the day that Muslim parents start to experience such educational practices. Mind you the current Scots FM seems happy with them.
As an aside, I once met Jimmy Savile in a private capacity and it beggars belief as far as I’m concerned that none of the BBC hierarchy ever felt uncomfortable in the man’s presence. I found him a very disturbing personality even on a very short acquaintance, and that long before he was exposed for what he was. Though I must use Ms Stock’s excuse as to why I didn’t spread my concerns more widely – I was too busy with other more interesting things.
On the subject of Saville and the BBC, I, and many of my school age friends in Leeds, were well aware that he was ‘a creep’ to be avoided. He was given the keys to Leeds Infirmary and left to his own devices to ‘pester’ anyone who took his fancy. It was an open secret in Leeds that he was a pervert so when I was admitted to the hospital and was unfortunate to find him sitting on my bed leering at me, I ‘gave him the shoulder’. He got the message and slunk away. The BBC, who no doubt had a Northern correspondent in Leeds at the time, would surely have known about his predilection for young girls. However they nipped their nose and feigned ignorance – desperate for viewing figures!
So no Jim’ll fixit badge for you then?
So no Jim’ll fixit badge for you then?
On the subject of Saville and the BBC, I, and many of my school age friends in Leeds, were well aware that he was ‘a creep’ to be avoided. He was given the keys to Leeds Infirmary and left to his own devices to ‘pester’ anyone who took his fancy. It was an open secret in Leeds that he was a pervert so when I was admitted to the hospital and was unfortunate to find him sitting on my bed leering at me, I ‘gave him the shoulder’. He got the message and slunk away. The BBC, who no doubt had a Northern correspondent in Leeds at the time, would surely have known about his predilection for young girls. However they nipped their nose and feigned ignorance – desperate for viewing figures!
“these radical progressives are a smaller group within the new elite”.
The size of the radical group is less important than the ferventness of the members radicalness. The elites are mostly Professional Managerial Class, but those folks are mostly weakly political technocrats with little ideological spine. The radicals are religious fundamentalists who view every slight as a heresy against their new god. There’s a reason the PMCs have folded like the cheap suits they are — we educated them to be bureaucrats not heroes.
“the legal system is very much on the side of the activists thanks to misguided Equalities legislation of this country and how it has effectively removed equality before the law.”
Indeed, and one must ask the question why this wretched so-called Tory Government has done absolutely NOTHING to repeal this pernicious legislation, despite being ‘in power’ for more than a decade?
Perhaps they actually agree with it? In which case we should prepare for the destruction of our society as we know it.
I read the essay on James Mill published today in Unherd first and so it struck me that your observation on the pernicious effects of the Equalities legislation in providing for protected classes very much mirrors the separate legal systems of traditional Indian colonialism that James Mill railed against and argued in favour of equality of all races before the law. As I observed in the comments under that article the radicalism of James Mill in that respect has become regarded as deeply conservative and right wing while the inequalities of multicultural protected classes is regarded as progressive and philosophically virtuous rather than traditional conservative colonialism of the pre-James Mill approach. It highlights how meaningless the concepts of right and left and radical and conservative have become. Like the old white colonialist in India we have managed to erected a legal structure to advantage some races above others but in this case it is the native British that are disadvantaged.
Just on the implied ‘management’ challenge related to ethnic staff and the perceived inability to manage performance because of ‘fear’ of being labelled racist – good managers, following fair, transparent process, particularly about how you judge performance, won’t have this problem and will be appreciated by their staff. Poor managers will have problems.
We need to be a little less ‘snowflakely’ about what good management entails and requires. We’ll always find a v small cohort of work colleagues trying it on and using every angle they can to avoid their responsibilities.
“wouldn’t dare challenge a female colleague of an ethnic minority”
There is a substantial error here – you assume a) all ethnic minorities are “victims” and therefore protected and b) victimhood privileges are additive.
If you are Indian Hindu or (in smaller numbers) Vietnamese or Lankan, there are no privileges to being “ethnic”.
And, this lack of “victim privileges” is irrespective of male or female.
Thus, if you are an India female, you are fair game for racism AND sexism because even your women privileges don’t apply fully.
Similarly, if you are a lower class, non college educated deplorable white, you lack “victim privileges” – irrespective of male or female – as thousands of female white grooming gangs victims have found out in labour dominated councils (the party of choice, incidentally, for the vast majority of college educated, upper class women aged 25-30)
You make a valid point about how “… misguided Equalities legislation of this country … has effectively removed equality before the law.”
The infusion of human rights legislation into every facet of society by ‘human rights’ lawyers, coupled with the concomitant domination of law-making in this area by unaccountable judges who have trumped the sovereign process of parliamentary governance has not only undermined the foundations of democracy, but has served to invert the law so that it now serves minority rights at the expense of those of majorities. This inversion is an incredibly powerful weapon that has been ruthlessly exploited by activists, usually driven by Marxist ideals that divide the world into the oppressed and the oppressors. In a democratic system weakened by such diminution, even removal, of the rights of majorities, it is not surprising that those majorities find themselves increasingly powerless to fight back – not least because the new Woking Class (as distinct from the the former Liberal Elite) has infiltrated every nook and cranny, vertically and horizontally, of the fabric of our existence and social interaction.
I have great respect for Kathleen Stock and value her writing. But on this occasion I believe she has significantly understated the depth and breadth of the ‘woke’ revolution that has overtaken western civilisation.
It’s hilarious that the author of this piece is completely oblivious to her own membership in the liberal academic elite.
Indeed. As Neema Parvini points out in his seminal book “The Populist Delusion” culture is downstream of law. It is activists changing law (particularly under Blair, but not exclusively so) that has ruptured society beyond repair.
In summary the article takes the long way round to get to the fact that an affluent managerial class will always take the route of least resistance to career success. It is merely a question of financial and social incentives.
For some reason I have to latch onto a post to post myself, I can’t just start a new thread, so if this appears at odds with your post you know why.
The above article strikes me as not much more than a “Not me Guv” response to a book I’ve yet to read. However, the whole concept of ‘Woke” is intriguing. Sometimes our intellectuals delve to deeply into something. I don’t bother much about the science behind the fusion reactor known as the sun when I’m enjoying a sunny day. Or possibly more to the point if lying on the grass watching the clouds on such a sunny day, I find it amusing that the deeper mechanisms in me can identify the clouds as rabbits, faces etc. None of it is true, and I know that but I can accept the interpretation and enjoy it because it is harmless. However when I see a real rabbit, the mechanism works well. The nuts and bolts in terms of psychology of the Woke maybe interesting but more of interest is to my mind the wilful ignorance of the large real perception, if Ms Stock is to be believed, and how the elite keep their consciences quiet.
Trans ideology for a start is the driving force behind one new child abuse. Then we have Drag Queen Story time, which a major union (apparently) demands.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/773af654-d3b3-11ed-b1cd-5223fe349502?shareToken=ccd348dd761f2361f2c85c96819a145a
is it too going to be seen for what it also is, another form of child abuse?
Mentioning the P word seems to upset the Unherd moderation. How ironic
if the labelling of the facts is Unherd here while the argument for them
isn’t!
Drag Queen story time strikes me as being a shiny cover for Paedophilia. The fact that Labour is up to its neck in both these philosophies should not be surprising, at least if you have ever read this BBC article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378
Not that the Tories are blameless. The fact is the Tories are basically New Labour and the Labour Party an older Labour (circa 1970’s? That is the era of the article.)
Sometimes what you see is actually what you are getting, and the + in LBGTQIA+ perhaps really is then new love that dare not speak its name and Ms Stock and her ‘cohort’ prefer not to delve too deeply into discovering that?
Who would have thought after Savile that the BBC and our Establishment would not only willingly accept, but actually promote even worse abuse and in greater numbers. I wait with interest for the day that Muslim parents start to experience such educational practices. Mind you the current Scots FM seems happy with them.
As an aside, I once met Jimmy Savile in a private capacity and it beggars belief as far as I’m concerned that none of the BBC hierarchy ever felt uncomfortable in the man’s presence. I found him a very disturbing personality even on a very short acquaintance, and that long before he was exposed for what he was. Though I must use Ms Stock’s excuse as to why I didn’t spread my concerns more widely – I was too busy with other more interesting things.
I think this article makes some good points. However it fails to mention the key reason why staff are so afraid to stand up to their activist colleagues, is that the legal system is very much on the side of the activists thanks to misguided Equalities legislation of this country and how it has effectively removed equality before the law.
I’d be more than happy to call out a white male colleague who was incompetent but I wouldn’t dare challenge a female colleague of an ethnic minority, because if a dispute escalated, I fear I’d be fired in an instant if they were willing to weaponise their protected characteristics, because they have a legal privilege that is denied to myself and others. Though it should be noted, that many of the worst offenders in this new legal regime are not those with protected characteristics themselves but those who use the law to build up networks of patronage and privilege by abusing them. Shaping institutions to their ideological biases by using the discriminatory power they have under the law to hire and fire without merit.
It is an irony of ridiculous proportions that in order to fight invisible privileges (which in truth are nothing more than socioeconomic disparities with no clear discriminatory basis) dreamt of by left wing academia, the solution has been literally to reintroduce the kind of unequal legal privileges which liberal democracies fought so hard to expel from society due to their pernicious effects.
I think to dismiss this issue as just another facet of the culture war is misguided. If there is no equality before the law the very concept of a stable legal order is undermined. Look at the increasingly febrile atmosphere of American politics. If that becomes the case here, a culture war will be the least of our worries.
It’s because the language of politics is too weak to fight against wokeism. I believe many people are becoming woke not just because they are earnest believers in a wokeist world view, but because it affords them the same level of righteous power as a religious fanatic who cannot fathom that their extreme views are evil.
Contrary to popular thought, Christianity was designed to resist the excesses of this religious impulse and channel it in a way that benefits others. By dismantling the guardrails of Christianity we have left ourselves exposed to those who espouse a far more vicious and spiteful version of religion.
At the end of the day it is a matter of faith. We have lost faith in ourselves as parents, teachers, and leaders. Heck, we don’t even know if we are men or women any more. No wonder our children are desperately looking for absolutes and moral certainties. By placing them in a historical and cultural vacuum we stopped teaching them how to live and now they hate us for it.
Your comment precisely distils the problem, its causes, its effects.
It is the failure to replace waiting Christian belief with extensive ethics education in schools that disappoints me most.
Do you not mean waning?
Do you not mean waning?
I think your cultural premise here is correct and the argument is very wise.
I would contest two things though.
First, Wokism isn’t like a religion, it is a religion. In fact, its the oldest Religion which posits that the Snake in the Garden was telling the truth and Human bodies are a Prison of the Soul. It’s Gnosticism 101. Every Leftist movement at least since Rousseau has been led by Gnostic practitioners that believed Christianity was the prison that trapped the Human from unleashing his/her God traits and once everyone realized they were Gods, everyone would think the same (collectivism) and either the True God would reveal himself or Heaven on Earth would be Achieved (Secular Utopia). The Hivemind is a necessary condition which is why all Communist movements demand conformance.
Second, Britain unlike the US was serially infected with Anti-Christianity via the Fabian Society and because Britain unlike the US had a State religion. Christianity was imposed on Britain. Christianity is not meant to be imposed. If you don’t believe Christ was God, you’re not a Christian. It’s that simple. If you believe Christianity’s enduring value is grounded in a particular system of ethics founded on a Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type myth and not genuine Faith than you fundamentally misunderstand Christianity. I understand Materialism and I understand why most Brits don’t believe in God but I don’t understand why so few have read Chesterton and Lewis.
Anyhow, good points in general.
The Church of England is actually the religion most would still closest to in England, even agnostics. Plus adding together Christians, Muslims and Jews over 50% in the UK still do God. More too adding Hindus and Sikhs
mmm but Allah and the Christian God are different so believing in God is not enough. One has to decide which is right.
mmm but Allah and the Christian God are different so believing in God is not enough. One has to decide which is right.
I’ve never heard of the Fabian society but your point is well made. Truth or deception has always been the battle and always will be.
Ah yes, The Fabian Society, the late British Victorian elite shock troops of bohemianism and collectivism. . They are a big part what created the self-hating intellectual class George Orwell so perceptively skewered in the 1930s.
We still live deeply under their shadow.
Ah yes, The Fabian Society, the late British Victorian elite shock troops of bohemianism and collectivism. . They are a big part what created the self-hating intellectual class George Orwell so perceptively skewered in the 1930s.
We still live deeply under their shadow.
Very enlightening. Especially given the record of the Catholic church which, unlike the zealots the UnHerd cohort likes to single out, did not cancel its opponents but actually burned them.
The Church of England is actually the religion most would still closest to in England, even agnostics. Plus adding together Christians, Muslims and Jews over 50% in the UK still do God. More too adding Hindus and Sikhs
I’ve never heard of the Fabian society but your point is well made. Truth or deception has always been the battle and always will be.
Very enlightening. Especially given the record of the Catholic church which, unlike the zealots the UnHerd cohort likes to single out, did not cancel its opponents but actually burned them.
Your comment precisely distils the problem, its causes, its effects.
It is the failure to replace waiting Christian belief with extensive ethics education in schools that disappoints me most.
I think your cultural premise here is correct and the argument is very wise.
I would contest two things though.
First, Wokism isn’t like a religion, it is a religion. In fact, its the oldest Religion which posits that the Snake in the Garden was telling the truth and Human bodies are a Prison of the Soul. It’s Gnosticism 101. Every Leftist movement at least since Rousseau has been led by Gnostic practitioners that believed Christianity was the prison that trapped the Human from unleashing his/her God traits and once everyone realized they were Gods, everyone would think the same (collectivism) and either the True God would reveal himself or Heaven on Earth would be Achieved (Secular Utopia). The Hivemind is a necessary condition which is why all Communist movements demand conformance.
Second, Britain unlike the US was serially infected with Anti-Christianity via the Fabian Society and because Britain unlike the US had a State religion. Christianity was imposed on Britain. Christianity is not meant to be imposed. If you don’t believe Christ was God, you’re not a Christian. It’s that simple. If you believe Christianity’s enduring value is grounded in a particular system of ethics founded on a Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type myth and not genuine Faith than you fundamentally misunderstand Christianity. I understand Materialism and I understand why most Brits don’t believe in God but I don’t understand why so few have read Chesterton and Lewis.
Anyhow, good points in general.
It’s because the language of politics is too weak to fight against wokeism. I believe many people are becoming woke not just because they are earnest believers in a wokeist world view, but because it affords them the same level of righteous power as a religious fanatic who cannot fathom that their extreme views are evil.
Contrary to popular thought, Christianity was designed to resist the excesses of this religious impulse and channel it in a way that benefits others. By dismantling the guardrails of Christianity we have left ourselves exposed to those who espouse a far more vicious and spiteful version of religion.
At the end of the day it is a matter of faith. We have lost faith in ourselves as parents, teachers, and leaders. Heck, we don’t even know if we are men or women any more. No wonder our children are desperately looking for absolutes and moral certainties. By placing them in a historical and cultural vacuum we stopped teaching them how to live and now they hate us for it.
Reading the first few paragraphs reminded me of seeing a friend of a friend on social media (Scottish, university-educated, multilingual, works at an international organisation as an interpreter, property-owning – may or may not have come from a working class background but works hard to create that impression in any case) write without a trace of irony:
“I was at a farmer’s market in the 2nd district* at the weekend. There were SO many privileged middle-class there, I wanted to hit them all over the head”.
I should have walked on by, but it was too good an opportunity and the moment was too perfect, so I asked her what we were if not privileged and middle class. She seemed a bit shocked by the question.
(*of Vienna – traditionally the Jewish quarter, now FULL of hipsters)
Ay, there’s the rub – working class people generally aspire to a bourgeois existence, whereas the bourgeoisie themselves often disparage it because they take their education for granted and suffer from the terrible illusion that the working class are somehow more ‘authentic’
And the people who do come from working class backgrounds and have made the step up to the middle class often don’t realise that it’s time to come down off the barricades now and continue acting resentful towards the middle class. The chip on the shoulder never fades away.
To me, anyone who posts on UnHerd is at least middle class – by definition. They are middle-class by education; they can read, assess, and make logical arguments.
But, like me, they may come from working class backgrounds. My father was a shop-steward in a car factory and he never recovered after I said I wanted to go to university. He said, “But then you’ll be one of the bosses.” And he was right. In one of my past jobs I was a Production Manager in a factory, arguing against unions.
Looking back, most of the times the unions were right and the bosses were wrong. On balance, my father was right. So, I am middle-class by definition but see both sides of these arguments. That makes me dangerous? That means that nobody should trust me?
And there is the problem. The middle-class people are meddling, doing what they think is right because they grew up working class. They are virtue-signalling to show their support. They even hate the Tories because they think the Tories must automatically be bad. Most could never go back to being truly working class. Many own houses which is as middle-class as you can get.
It reminds me of the last election when a canvasser knocked at the door, promoting the Labour Party. She told me about all the good work they wanted to do for the poor people. When she mentioned the Tories she almost spat in disgust. But she was highly educated, beautifully dressed, and very posh. Compared to me, she was almost aristocratic. I was and am confused.
Aren’t we all.
no
no
I think to be honest, there’s an increasingly large amount of people who have a weird class status – those like yourself, who were working class, but are now more middle class in terms of lifestyle, and others who have an education that is designed for middle class norms, but they were raised working class, and for a variety of reasons, continue to live in predominantly working class areas in fairly poor circumstances.
That’s pretty much my status, I am the disabled child of a single mother and grew up very poor on a pretty bad council estate. However, I was considered gifted at school from a young age, and my mother always instilled in me that it was very important for me to make the most of my education, be well mannered and speak politely if I wanted to make the most of that.
I now have multiple degrees, and I can talk like a middle class academic if I choose, but because I have a significant disability, I’ve never been able to work full time, and have spent my adult life living in deprived working class neighbourhoods simply because I can’t afford to live anywhere else and I am single, so have no partner to share financial burdens.
This means that most of the mundane experiences of life I have tend to have more in common with my neighbours than with those in academic circles. Yet when I speak to my neighbours and others, because the way I speak is influenced by my education, I am treated as if I am middle class. It creates this weird limbo, where I don’t feel like I belong to either group, and there are more and more like me because the sheer volume of degree holders being pumped out by universities exceeds the number of jobs that require degrees.
Many thanks for that, and your previous post. These are the kind of insights that make reading Comments worthwhile. I’m in a not too dissimilar situation (without the disability) so i can fully appreciate everything of which you speak.
A very powerful statement; both insightful and instructive. Thank you.
Yes I had malfunctioning parents, lived rough as a teen, have done enough manual work that I’m a skilled builder, grew up in a Yorkshire mill village. But went to a mixture of private and state schools, read a lot from a young age, done white collar jobs overseas for years. Builders I work with think I’m posh, but I generally look rough and most of the time smart arsy ppl think I’m a yokel.
How very sad.
Part of me wants to say “isn’t that great that you’re now outside normal class classification” and might then be judged on your own merits (something I think that is easier for foreigners to pull off).
But when I read your account, I realise this might also be quite isolating sometimes and through no fault or choice of your own.
Many thanks for that, and your previous post. These are the kind of insights that make reading Comments worthwhile. I’m in a not too dissimilar situation (without the disability) so i can fully appreciate everything of which you speak.
A very powerful statement; both insightful and instructive. Thank you.
Yes I had malfunctioning parents, lived rough as a teen, have done enough manual work that I’m a skilled builder, grew up in a Yorkshire mill village. But went to a mixture of private and state schools, read a lot from a young age, done white collar jobs overseas for years. Builders I work with think I’m posh, but I generally look rough and most of the time smart arsy ppl think I’m a yokel.
How very sad.
Part of me wants to say “isn’t that great that you’re now outside normal class classification” and might then be judged on your own merits (something I think that is easier for foreigners to pull off).
But when I read your account, I realise this might also be quite isolating sometimes and through no fault or choice of your own.
My mother took the opposite view to your father. She was adamant that her children would live longer than her parents. There was no future in Dead End Street, as far as she was concerned.
I probably count as posh, and sympathise with common-sensible working class Tories, for which reason I hate Labour. Go figure.
The correct approach but incredibly, before our very eyes, the wretched Tories are metamorphosing into New Labour or something even worse.
Time to ditch them as well as Labour I think. Very few of them want to do good. More interested in winning votes. Miriam Cate, Suella Braverman and Liz Truss are a few exceptions that spring to mind.
Yes you have a point there, Gorgons to the rescue!
Yes you have a point there, Gorgons to the rescue!
Time to ditch them as well as Labour I think. Very few of them want to do good. More interested in winning votes. Miriam Cate, Suella Braverman and Liz Truss are a few exceptions that spring to mind.
hear hear!
The correct approach but incredibly, before our very eyes, the wretched Tories are metamorphosing into New Labour or something even worse.
hear hear!
Aren’t we all.
I think to be honest, there’s an increasingly large amount of people who have a weird class status – those like yourself, who were working class, but are now more middle class in terms of lifestyle, and others who have an education that is designed for middle class norms, but they were raised working class, and for a variety of reasons, continue to live in predominantly working class areas in fairly poor circumstances.
That’s pretty much my status, I am the disabled child of a single mother and grew up very poor on a pretty bad council estate. However, I was considered gifted at school from a young age, and my mother always instilled in me that it was very important for me to make the most of my education, be well mannered and speak politely if I wanted to make the most of that.
I now have multiple degrees, and I can talk like a middle class academic if I choose, but because I have a significant disability, I’ve never been able to work full time, and have spent my adult life living in deprived working class neighbourhoods simply because I can’t afford to live anywhere else and I am single, so have no partner to share financial burdens.
This means that most of the mundane experiences of life I have tend to have more in common with my neighbours than with those in academic circles. Yet when I speak to my neighbours and others, because the way I speak is influenced by my education, I am treated as if I am middle class. It creates this weird limbo, where I don’t feel like I belong to either group, and there are more and more like me because the sheer volume of degree holders being pumped out by universities exceeds the number of jobs that require degrees.
My mother took the opposite view to your father. She was adamant that her children would live longer than her parents. There was no future in Dead End Street, as far as she was concerned.
I probably count as posh, and sympathise with common-sensible working class Tories, for which reason I hate Labour. Go figure.
I’m exactly the person you describe – however I thoroughly enjoy the accoutrements of my bourgeois existence. The thing I really value though is the education I received by getting a place at grammar school.
The irony of course is that many people would say that enjoying my middle class lifestyle shows I’m actually working class! The REAL middle class tend to be much more blasé about it.
And then there’s the accent thing. In my head I sound like Richard Burton, but I know the reality is more along the lines of Paul Merton…
To me, anyone who posts on UnHerd is at least middle class – by definition. They are middle-class by education; they can read, assess, and make logical arguments.
But, like me, they may come from working class backgrounds. My father was a shop-steward in a car factory and he never recovered after I said I wanted to go to university. He said, “But then you’ll be one of the bosses.” And he was right. In one of my past jobs I was a Production Manager in a factory, arguing against unions.
Looking back, most of the times the unions were right and the bosses were wrong. On balance, my father was right. So, I am middle-class by definition but see both sides of these arguments. That makes me dangerous? That means that nobody should trust me?
And there is the problem. The middle-class people are meddling, doing what they think is right because they grew up working class. They are virtue-signalling to show their support. They even hate the Tories because they think the Tories must automatically be bad. Most could never go back to being truly working class. Many own houses which is as middle-class as you can get.
It reminds me of the last election when a canvasser knocked at the door, promoting the Labour Party. She told me about all the good work they wanted to do for the poor people. When she mentioned the Tories she almost spat in disgust. But she was highly educated, beautifully dressed, and very posh. Compared to me, she was almost aristocratic. I was and am confused.
I’m exactly the person you describe – however I thoroughly enjoy the accoutrements of my bourgeois existence. The thing I really value though is the education I received by getting a place at grammar school.
The irony of course is that many people would say that enjoying my middle class lifestyle shows I’m actually working class! The REAL middle class tend to be much more blasé about it.
And then there’s the accent thing. In my head I sound like Richard Burton, but I know the reality is more along the lines of Paul Merton…
As Jarvis Cocker nailed in “Common People”. Probably not a coincidence that this was a mid 90s song.
How hard it is for those who are rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
And the people who do come from working class backgrounds and have made the step up to the middle class often don’t realise that it’s time to come down off the barricades now and continue acting resentful towards the middle class. The chip on the shoulder never fades away.
As Jarvis Cocker nailed in “Common People”. Probably not a coincidence that this was a mid 90s song.
How hard it is for those who are rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
I think you have given a superb example of the middle class self-hatred that is a significant part of the story. Her deeply shocked denial rings so true to my experience as well. It’s essentially our old friend snobbery in covert mode.
Ay, there’s the rub – working class people generally aspire to a bourgeois existence, whereas the bourgeoisie themselves often disparage it because they take their education for granted and suffer from the terrible illusion that the working class are somehow more ‘authentic’
I think you have given a superb example of the middle class self-hatred that is a significant part of the story. Her deeply shocked denial rings so true to my experience as well. It’s essentially our old friend snobbery in covert mode.
Reading the first few paragraphs reminded me of seeing a friend of a friend on social media (Scottish, university-educated, multilingual, works at an international organisation as an interpreter, property-owning – may or may not have come from a working class background but works hard to create that impression in any case) write without a trace of irony:
“I was at a farmer’s market in the 2nd district* at the weekend. There were SO many privileged middle-class there, I wanted to hit them all over the head”.
I should have walked on by, but it was too good an opportunity and the moment was too perfect, so I asked her what we were if not privileged and middle class. She seemed a bit shocked by the question.
(*of Vienna – traditionally the Jewish quarter, now FULL of hipsters)
I think this is fair comment from the author. The liberal elite are a mixed bag. You have leaders like Trudeau, who are full woke, although he will sell out his convictions with no hesitation. And then you have people like Johnson, who likely doesn’t give a hoot about wokeism, but goes along for political expediency.
Although the author’s comments make sense when it comes to the cultural wars, it doesn’t explain something like net zero. This will clearly cause horrific damage to the economies of the west. How do we explain the failure to push back against this self-destructive set of policies?
…people like Johnson, who likely doesn’t give a hoot about wokeism, but goes along for political expediency.
Or a peaceful marriage?
It is hard to be truthful with a wife like that.
It is hard to be truthful with a wife like that.
Answer….they thoroughly believe that humans can “save the planet” and that measuring a millisecond in time is the equivalent of reading a trend. It appears that delusion is a fairly common human trait.
It’s been going on for 80 years if you check the history. for much of the time it was about the fall in temperature with extreme warnings of the end by the experts. Somehow this changed to global warming with equally dire predictions by the experts.
It’s been going on for 80 years if you check the history. for much of the time it was about the fall in temperature with extreme warnings of the end by the experts. Somehow this changed to global warming with equally dire predictions by the experts.
They deceive by saying it is the science and many believe them. It would be hard to choose the thing that is destroying our nation, the Woke or the net zero. Both are candidates.
‘They’ are ONE and the same thing.
‘They’ are ONE and the same thing.
…people like Johnson, who likely doesn’t give a hoot about wokeism, but goes along for political expediency.
Or a peaceful marriage?
Answer….they thoroughly believe that humans can “save the planet” and that measuring a millisecond in time is the equivalent of reading a trend. It appears that delusion is a fairly common human trait.
They deceive by saying it is the science and many believe them. It would be hard to choose the thing that is destroying our nation, the Woke or the net zero. Both are candidates.
I think this is fair comment from the author. The liberal elite are a mixed bag. You have leaders like Trudeau, who are full woke, although he will sell out his convictions with no hesitation. And then you have people like Johnson, who likely doesn’t give a hoot about wokeism, but goes along for political expediency.
Although the author’s comments make sense when it comes to the cultural wars, it doesn’t explain something like net zero. This will clearly cause horrific damage to the economies of the west. How do we explain the failure to push back against this self-destructive set of policies?
I think it has a different genesis. In every generation there are those who deeply care about an issue – often one issue. Say ‘Save the Whale’. It becomes the poster on their door. The group they raise money for. They write a letter to their MP. A few get roped in to organising and fundraising. And it then becomes their issue.
Their friends don’t care, but know not to bring it up. They’d know that suggesting a Japanese restaurant would cause antagonism, so they don’t.
In a network of friends, all with their ‘one issue’ certain topics and issues move off bounds. If someone mentions the weather, the bore-in-the-corner will start on their global warming lecture. So conversation on fundamental topics becomes the preserve of the obsessed and activists. Normal people can’t have a discussion about trans-gender because they are not trans-gender or don’t know anyone trans-gender well enough to have an allowed opinion.
So on individual topics, regular people lose their voice. They just give in, even if instinctively they feel something is wrong or too extreme. They have no grounds for a different opinion (particularly if they don’t have religion or deep belief that says differently). The result is unopposed opinions for single-issue groups that can be leveraged for laws, regulations and funding.
Those groups then echo back through ‘regular’ people who have no alternative narrative that they know. My expert friends say that protecting refugees is good. So what madman stops people crossing the channel? The subject was abandoned to their ‘expert’ activist friends, so they don’t push back that a refugee is different to an economic migrant, and these are migrants attempting to jump the queue ahead of law-abiding applicants who might not then be allowed in. Sometimes the less educated are less fearful of challenging received opinion because they don’t have the pretense of intellectualism.
Every government in the west is talking about it so I suppose they must be right. But I still believe they are wrong and shock my friends as being a conspiracy theorist.
“ Every government in the West*” thought 1914 was OK!
Cretins!
(* Except ‘barbaricum’, otherwise known as the USA.)
“ Every government in the West*” thought 1914 was OK!
Cretins!
(* Except ‘barbaricum’, otherwise known as the USA.)
Every government in the west is talking about it so I suppose they must be right. But I still believe they are wrong and shock my friends as being a conspiracy theorist.
I think it has a different genesis. In every generation there are those who deeply care about an issue – often one issue. Say ‘Save the Whale’. It becomes the poster on their door. The group they raise money for. They write a letter to their MP. A few get roped in to organising and fundraising. And it then becomes their issue.
Their friends don’t care, but know not to bring it up. They’d know that suggesting a Japanese restaurant would cause antagonism, so they don’t.
In a network of friends, all with their ‘one issue’ certain topics and issues move off bounds. If someone mentions the weather, the bore-in-the-corner will start on their global warming lecture. So conversation on fundamental topics becomes the preserve of the obsessed and activists. Normal people can’t have a discussion about trans-gender because they are not trans-gender or don’t know anyone trans-gender well enough to have an allowed opinion.
So on individual topics, regular people lose their voice. They just give in, even if instinctively they feel something is wrong or too extreme. They have no grounds for a different opinion (particularly if they don’t have religion or deep belief that says differently). The result is unopposed opinions for single-issue groups that can be leveraged for laws, regulations and funding.
Those groups then echo back through ‘regular’ people who have no alternative narrative that they know. My expert friends say that protecting refugees is good. So what madman stops people crossing the channel? The subject was abandoned to their ‘expert’ activist friends, so they don’t push back that a refugee is different to an economic migrant, and these are migrants attempting to jump the queue ahead of law-abiding applicants who might not then be allowed in. Sometimes the less educated are less fearful of challenging received opinion because they don’t have the pretense of intellectualism.
As usual a very clear eyed view of things from Kathleen Stock. Most of those in senior positions are not themselves social justice warriors but simply lack the firm convictions to counter these political totalitarians that for the most part do not personally disadvantage them provided that they bend with the prevailing woke outlook like the Vicar of Bray.
There’s the rub. Those who believe in nothing, have nothing to defend.
Harsh, but fair.
It always troubled me in my working life that decent colleagues of the highest intelligence and education were utterly unaware of staring-you-in-the-face societal issues.
And their reaction on having the issues explained them was indifference … but without the sense of engagement that that term usually connotes.
And here we are now.
“It always troubled me in my working life that decent colleagues of the highest intelligence and education were utterly unaware of staring-you-in-the-face societal issues.”
On the eve of the Brexit referendum I met up with my former PhD supervisor, a very distinguished Professor of the Philosophy of Physics, who threw a toddler tantrum when I told him of my intention to vote Leave because of the effect of continuous mass immigration on housing availability, public services, and C2DE wages. In particular, I recall him having absolutely no notion of the fact that there was quite a large number of people living in tents in the woods about three hundred yards from his own front door.
“It always troubled me in my working life that decent colleagues of the highest intelligence and education were utterly unaware of staring-you-in-the-face societal issues.”
On the eve of the Brexit referendum I met up with my former PhD supervisor, a very distinguished Professor of the Philosophy of Physics, who threw a toddler tantrum when I told him of my intention to vote Leave because of the effect of continuous mass immigration on housing availability, public services, and C2DE wages. In particular, I recall him having absolutely no notion of the fact that there was quite a large number of people living in tents in the woods about three hundred yards from his own front door.
You’ve hit the nail. The people Ms. Stock describes are adrift. She says they are educated but surely she means the opposite. One gains one’s bearings by reading, but the lost generation did not do that (books that aren’t great don’t count). One who knows nothing will believe anything. This is why a mere handful or rebels can change the world.
Harsh, but fair.
It always troubled me in my working life that decent colleagues of the highest intelligence and education were utterly unaware of staring-you-in-the-face societal issues.
And their reaction on having the issues explained them was indifference … but without the sense of engagement that that term usually connotes.
And here we are now.
You’ve hit the nail. The people Ms. Stock describes are adrift. She says they are educated but surely she means the opposite. One gains one’s bearings by reading, but the lost generation did not do that (books that aren’t great don’t count). One who knows nothing will believe anything. This is why a mere handful or rebels can change the world.
She also alludes to the CEO’s woke daughter theory, which I find quite plausible.
Traitorous leaders in the camp then. They won’t refute them even though they don’t believe them. Spineless?
There’s the rub. Those who believe in nothing, have nothing to defend.
She also alludes to the CEO’s woke daughter theory, which I find quite plausible.
Traitorous leaders in the camp then. They won’t refute them even though they don’t believe them. Spineless?
As usual a very clear eyed view of things from Kathleen Stock. Most of those in senior positions are not themselves social justice warriors but simply lack the firm convictions to counter these political totalitarians that for the most part do not personally disadvantage them provided that they bend with the prevailing woke outlook like the Vicar of Bray.
‘To my knowledge, only one person from my college year group is unemployed — and that’s Dominic Cummings.’
This is a cracking line.
My experience of being apparently part of the same generation backs up this argument. Apathy and relativism and irony dominated the 1990s, and the woke have raged through the institutions in part because these comfy liberals don’t really believe in much, and thus crumble quickly.
Cracked me up too.
I’m the same generation – the glory days of Pulp Fiction, Loaded magazine and the Happy Mondays.
I had a girlfriend at university that was into leftwing politics so I knew all the politically motivated people on campus. There was a hardcore of about 10 (soap-dodgers, vegans, weirdly pro-IRA) and probably about 20 hangeroners. That was out of several thousand students. I remember they could never get a quorum to hold a vote in the student union meetings! I can’t remember any of my friends (even those studying politics) having any noticeable political convictions. I suppose they, like me, voted for Tony Blair because he seemed the least “political” option: backbench Tory MPs talking about Maastricht and Old Labour activists about Clause 4 seemed completely dreary and irrelevant.
Well, an honest evaluation, but you and your ilk only have yourselves to blame for the morass ‘we’ now find ourselves in.
! I can’t remember any of my friends (even those studying politics) having any noticeable political convictions
Well now that’s encouraging, even politics students had no convictions and I wondered how we got this point. Now I don’t.
I suppose they, like me, voted for Tony Blair because he seemed the least “political” option
You voted for a politician who wasn’t political? Is that even a thing?
Well, an honest evaluation, but you and your ilk only have yourselves to blame for the morass ‘we’ now find ourselves in.
! I can’t remember any of my friends (even those studying politics) having any noticeable political convictions
Well now that’s encouraging, even politics students had no convictions and I wondered how we got this point. Now I don’t.
I suppose they, like me, voted for Tony Blair because he seemed the least “political” option
You voted for a politician who wasn’t political? Is that even a thing?
I’ve never met anyone who believes in it. Surely we are in the majority?
Cracked me up too.
I’m the same generation – the glory days of Pulp Fiction, Loaded magazine and the Happy Mondays.
I had a girlfriend at university that was into leftwing politics so I knew all the politically motivated people on campus. There was a hardcore of about 10 (soap-dodgers, vegans, weirdly pro-IRA) and probably about 20 hangeroners. That was out of several thousand students. I remember they could never get a quorum to hold a vote in the student union meetings! I can’t remember any of my friends (even those studying politics) having any noticeable political convictions. I suppose they, like me, voted for Tony Blair because he seemed the least “political” option: backbench Tory MPs talking about Maastricht and Old Labour activists about Clause 4 seemed completely dreary and irrelevant.
I’ve never met anyone who believes in it. Surely we are in the majority?
‘To my knowledge, only one person from my college year group is unemployed — and that’s Dominic Cummings.’
This is a cracking line.
My experience of being apparently part of the same generation backs up this argument. Apathy and relativism and irony dominated the 1990s, and the woke have raged through the institutions in part because these comfy liberals don’t really believe in much, and thus crumble quickly.
I’m surprised to discover that Phil, Andy and Dave are ” solidly middle-class” names, but that’s by the by. It seems to me that Stock here, at least in part, misses the point. I and my peer group, she seems to say, are solidly a part of the elite and we are not like that! But Goodwin’s new “elite” is not composed of people who were undergraduates 30 years ago. The woke zealots are, I think, generally of a later generation and it is inarguable that they have successfully seized the commanding heights of of the narrative battleground. I’m afraid it doesn’t say much for Stock’s cohort if ( again, as she seems to say), they weren’t smart enough or were too indifferent to prevent the institutions in which they work from being captured.
Precisely. At best she misunderstands his argument, at worst she’s straw-manning.
To me it reads like an abdication of any responsibility. An historical discontinuity. Ideas evolve and develop, they don’t come out of nowhere. Kathleen Stock’s conversion to lesbianism is equivalent to a contemporary conversion to transgenderism. Dylan Mulroney counts his days of girlhood. Transgenders have usurped the homosexual position of trendy victim. Kathleen Stock is a contemporary of Cathy Newman. Just watch the Cathy Newman – Jordan Peterson interview for a public display of the politics and attitudes of Kathleen Stock’s contemporaries. Cathy Newman has a first class degree in English from Oxford but all she does is peddle feminist propaganda. So indoctrinated is Cathy Newman, she wasn’t even aware the interview was a disaster for her. When she realised, she went into full victim mode accusing Jordan Peterson of allowing his followers to troll her, and claimed to have received death threats which were investigated by the police but found to be unfounded. In fact, Jordan Peterson received more trolling than Cathy Newman. I find Kathleen Stock disingenuous.
A “first class degree from Oxford” is NOT what it was, and probably never will be again!
We seem to be going through some kind of cultural revolution but, bizarrely, it is being instigated by the academics themselves. I remember hearing in 1988 about a female PhD candidate at Cambridge university whose English PhD thesis had been failed for political reasons. At the time, I didn’t believe it, I assumed it just wasn’t good enough and identifying politics as the reason for its rejection was a form of ego defence, though I was not familiar with the concept at the time. Then, I was extremely naive politically, now I think it is probably true. In Quebec, a Quebecois woman’s history PhD was definitely failed for political reasons but politics is much more overt in Quebec. Not only was her thesis failed, she was also vilified for having the audacity to write it. I am aware there are quite a number of Unherd readers (the herd) who consider me to be audacious, to cross a line. In the past my comments were frequently flagged so they kept disappearing and reappearing (attempted censorship).
I enjoy your comments even when I strongly disagree with them because they are generally well informed and intelligent.
I admire great learning. I know a while back I was involved in an academic debate with you Charles. At the time it seemed pointless as it was clear we were on opposite sides of a debate which has been going on for millennia. Neither of us was ever going to convert/ persuade the other. I guess we both had solid reasons for our stances. I would now like to continue the debate because you are clearly very learned and are familiar with the sources of arguments and I am not. I would like to familiarise myself with all the arguments. The best way to develop one’s ideas is to be aware of all the counter arguments and see if they can be matched or defeated.
Thank you, and of course you are absolutely correct about freedom of speech.
As many know, the late George Orwell put it perfectly when he said:”If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.
For many that it just too much, but if debate is to continue it is axiomatic that we have freedom of speech- no more, no less.
The slightly left-wing historian the AJP Taylor* also made an apposite observation when he said “The study of history best proceeds through controversy”.
Incidentally I have never ‘flagged’ anyone, ever! What is the point? It just stifles debate.
I have forgotten what we were previously discussing, but was it by any chance something to do with Christianity?
(*1906-1990.)
It was to do with Christianity. I will look through my comments and find it.
I found the comments. They are below another Kathleen Stock article: on Scottish independence. I thought you had placed a link to an article which I thought at the time was pointless reading but I cannot see a link.
It was to do with Christianity. I will look through my comments and find it.
I found the comments. They are below another Kathleen Stock article: on Scottish independence. I thought you had placed a link to an article which I thought at the time was pointless reading but I cannot see a link.
Thank you, and of course you are absolutely correct about freedom of speech.
As many know, the late George Orwell put it perfectly when he said:”If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.
For many that it just too much, but if debate is to continue it is axiomatic that we have freedom of speech- no more, no less.
The slightly left-wing historian the AJP Taylor* also made an apposite observation when he said “The study of history best proceeds through controversy”.
Incidentally I have never ‘flagged’ anyone, ever! What is the point? It just stifles debate.
I have forgotten what we were previously discussing, but was it by any chance something to do with Christianity?
(*1906-1990.)
We seem to be going through some kind of cultural revolution but, bizarrely, it is being instigated by the academics themselves. I remember hearing in 1988 about a female PhD candidate at Cambridge university whose English PhD thesis had been failed for political reasons. At the time, I didn’t believe it, I assumed it just wasn’t good enough and identifying politics as the reason for its rejection was a form of ego defence, though I was not familiar with the concept at the time. Then, I was extremely naive politically, now I think it is probably true. In Quebec, a Quebecois woman’s history PhD was definitely failed for political reasons but politics is much more overt in Quebec. Not only was her thesis failed, she was also vilified for having the audacity to write it. I am aware there are quite a number of Unherd readers (the herd) who consider me to be audacious, to cross a line. In the past my comments were frequently flagged so they kept disappearing and reappearing (attempted censorship).
I enjoy your comments even when I strongly disagree with them because they are generally well informed and intelligent.
I admire great learning. I know a while back I was involved in an academic debate with you Charles. At the time it seemed pointless as it was clear we were on opposite sides of a debate which has been going on for millennia. Neither of us was ever going to convert/ persuade the other. I guess we both had solid reasons for our stances. I would now like to continue the debate because you are clearly very learned and are familiar with the sources of arguments and I am not. I would like to familiarise myself with all the arguments. The best way to develop one’s ideas is to be aware of all the counter arguments and see if they can be matched or defeated.
You never know who they will put on here. I was deceived up to now.
A “first class degree from Oxford” is NOT what it was, and probably never will be again!
You never know who they will put on here. I was deceived up to now.
To me it reads like an abdication of any responsibility. An historical discontinuity. Ideas evolve and develop, they don’t come out of nowhere. Kathleen Stock’s conversion to lesbianism is equivalent to a contemporary conversion to transgenderism. Dylan Mulroney counts his days of girlhood. Transgenders have usurped the homosexual position of trendy victim. Kathleen Stock is a contemporary of Cathy Newman. Just watch the Cathy Newman – Jordan Peterson interview for a public display of the politics and attitudes of Kathleen Stock’s contemporaries. Cathy Newman has a first class degree in English from Oxford but all she does is peddle feminist propaganda. So indoctrinated is Cathy Newman, she wasn’t even aware the interview was a disaster for her. When she realised, she went into full victim mode accusing Jordan Peterson of allowing his followers to troll her, and claimed to have received death threats which were investigated by the police but found to be unfounded. In fact, Jordan Peterson received more trolling than Cathy Newman. I find Kathleen Stock disingenuous.
I don’t believe Kathleen Stock and her cohort were politically neutral. I think their political views were so uniform, they were taken for granted. They existed in an echo chamber. Plato discussed the importance of sameness and difference in his dialogues. Sameness is invisible without difference. If everyone has the same views then there is nothing to discuss and to a great extent they will be unaware of even having the views. I think her cohort probably couldn’t fight back because the arguments they had accepted as supporting their position were being used against them and they had never been challenged, plus there is a morbid fear of ending up on the wrong side of history like those who did not support changes to laws relating to homosexuals. Round about 1987, an Oxford graduate who was in his mid twenties, told me he thought he ought to have sex with a man (to demonstrate he was not homophobic) but he was not attracted to men, he said it would have to be a relatively hairless effeminate man. I never said anything at the time but I found it really odd that he thought he ought to have sex with a man, that there was a moral imperative. I knew he was ‘right-on’ politically, involved in Green Peace etc, but that was my initiation into the ‘elite’ Oxford group think. He thought of himself as being superior to the ignorant masses. Group think is boring. I horrified a Cambridge graduate because I had not read Cold Comfort farm. I was surprised by her reaction, I had no doubt I was far better read than she was, I realised later it was Cambridge group think, there was a certain set of books one was expected to have read.
Whilst claiming not to have been political at all, Kathleen stock proudly announces she is a feminist lesbian: sounds political to me, and she studied philosophy, surely that would have involved political philosophy. In the early eighties, militant feminists claimed only lesbians could be real feminists. It was definitely anti men: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle was the slogan,The implication was women can choose their sexuality and that sexuality is political. It is becoming relatively commonplace for young couples to call themselves, identify as, gay when one is trans. I have heard of enough cases now to check when I hear of a young gay couple, if there sexual activity in previous times would have been considered heterosexual.
Kathleen Stock wrote the book material girls, presumably to root the definition of woman in the material female body, disputing the notion woman is just a social construct. I don’t know what her position on abortion is but the feminist position is it is the woman’s right to choose, but feminists both abort foetuses and mourn miscarriage (the loss of a baby): Same material object, different social construct. If the material matters and is essential to fixing a definition then the same material object cannot sometimes be a baby and sometimes be a foetus depending on its social construct. Philosophers were traditionally seekers after truth.
Kathleen Stock wrote material girls to support the argument only women can be lesbians. Producing arguments to support a cause is essentially propaganda. It’s not surprising there are unanticipated, unwanted implications.
no such word as homophobic
? It’s in the dictionary.
Yes but it is still not true. In the new Cambridge dictionary it says that a woman can be biological or chosen in the mind. That’s not true either and shows me never to buy a Cambridge dictionary.
Yes but it is still not true. In the new Cambridge dictionary it says that a woman can be biological or chosen in the mind. That’s not true either and shows me never to buy a Cambridge dictionary.
In the the past, I have been attacked for not stating my position on a particular issue. My position is always against Obfuscation: I am a vegetarian, I do not preach vegetarianism but I do believe meat eaters should acknowledge meat is a dead animal, an animal which has been killed. I think the contemporary phrase is ‘own it’. Jeremy Clarkson both owns it and eats meat – admirable.
Of course it is dead. I’d hate to eat a live animal. The vegetables we eat are dead as well.
The “Chinks” and other Oriental kin do on a regular basis! Frogs being the favourite https://youtu.be/RMPLXNpSM1A.
The “Chinks” and other Oriental kin do on a regular basis! Frogs being the favourite https://youtu.be/RMPLXNpSM1A.
Hats off. Now, that you have shown to be able to control your diet, chances are your dream to control others’ bodies will come true one day.
Of course it is dead. I’d hate to eat a live animal. The vegetables we eat are dead as well.
Hats off. Now, that you have shown to be able to control your diet, chances are your dream to control others’ bodies will come true one day.
? It’s in the dictionary.
In the the past, I have been attacked for not stating my position on a particular issue. My position is always against Obfuscation: I am a vegetarian, I do not preach vegetarianism but I do believe meat eaters should acknowledge meat is a dead animal, an animal which has been killed. I think the contemporary phrase is ‘own it’. Jeremy Clarkson both owns it and eats meat – admirable.
no such word as homophobic
Too idle to be at their posts then.
Precisely. At best she misunderstands his argument, at worst she’s straw-manning.
I don’t believe Kathleen Stock and her cohort were politically neutral. I think their political views were so uniform, they were taken for granted. They existed in an echo chamber. Plato discussed the importance of sameness and difference in his dialogues. Sameness is invisible without difference. If everyone has the same views then there is nothing to discuss and to a great extent they will be unaware of even having the views. I think her cohort probably couldn’t fight back because the arguments they had accepted as supporting their position were being used against them and they had never been challenged, plus there is a morbid fear of ending up on the wrong side of history like those who did not support changes to laws relating to homosexuals. Round about 1987, an Oxford graduate who was in his mid twenties, told me he thought he ought to have sex with a man (to demonstrate he was not homophobic) but he was not attracted to men, he said it would have to be a relatively hairless effeminate man. I never said anything at the time but I found it really odd that he thought he ought to have sex with a man, that there was a moral imperative. I knew he was ‘right-on’ politically, involved in Green Peace etc, but that was my initiation into the ‘elite’ Oxford group think. He thought of himself as being superior to the ignorant masses. Group think is boring. I horrified a Cambridge graduate because I had not read Cold Comfort farm. I was surprised by her reaction, I had no doubt I was far better read than she was, I realised later it was Cambridge group think, there was a certain set of books one was expected to have read.
Whilst claiming not to have been political at all, Kathleen stock proudly announces she is a feminist lesbian: sounds political to me, and she studied philosophy, surely that would have involved political philosophy. In the early eighties, militant feminists claimed only lesbians could be real feminists. It was definitely anti men: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle was the slogan,The implication was women can choose their sexuality and that sexuality is political. It is becoming relatively commonplace for young couples to call themselves, identify as, gay when one is trans. I have heard of enough cases now to check when I hear of a young gay couple, if there sexual activity in previous times would have been considered heterosexual.
Kathleen Stock wrote the book material girls, presumably to root the definition of woman in the material female body, disputing the notion woman is just a social construct. I don’t know what her position on abortion is but the feminist position is it is the woman’s right to choose, but feminists both abort foetuses and mourn miscarriage (the loss of a baby): Same material object, different social construct. If the material matters and is essential to fixing a definition then the same material object cannot sometimes be a baby and sometimes be a foetus depending on its social construct. Philosophers were traditionally seekers after truth.
Kathleen Stock wrote material girls to support the argument only women can be lesbians. Producing arguments to support a cause is essentially propaganda. It’s not surprising there are unanticipated, unwanted implications.
Too idle to be at their posts then.
I’m surprised to discover that Phil, Andy and Dave are ” solidly middle-class” names, but that’s by the by. It seems to me that Stock here, at least in part, misses the point. I and my peer group, she seems to say, are solidly a part of the elite and we are not like that! But Goodwin’s new “elite” is not composed of people who were undergraduates 30 years ago. The woke zealots are, I think, generally of a later generation and it is inarguable that they have successfully seized the commanding heights of of the narrative battleground. I’m afraid it doesn’t say much for Stock’s cohort if ( again, as she seems to say), they weren’t smart enough or were too indifferent to prevent the institutions in which they work from being captured.
Hmm, an interesting perspective, as ever, but I am not sure. I was at university in the late 70’s / early 80’s and, actually, most of us were not political, but there was a very visible contingent who were, mostly around left-wing causes and the re-emerging CND. None of this made a scrap of difference to how the 1980s turned out. I observed the decline in political observance in the 90s and generally considered it a good thing – the less politics the better.
However, I think the apathy argument falls down when we get to Brexit, which was opposed by the elites and educated classes as a bloc, and not just conceptually but viscerally. That generation is not nearly as de-politicised as the author suggests. Parliament, the legal profession, the civil service and the media mobilised groups such as the People’s Vote campaign and came within a hair’s breadth of overturning the referendum result. Similar forces are at play over blocking government policy on immigration, pushing net zero, promoting trans ideology and queering of schools.
I accept that our institutions may not be populated from top to bottom with student-union type woke activists. And people want to get on with their lives. But it is undoubtedly true that there are high-status opinions for virtue-signalling and opinions that are considered unacceptable (as many Brexit supporters will attest). And the predictably liberal nature of elite causes, the impact they are having, and the lack of counterbalance all suggest there must be a critical mass of motivated people in very influential and senior positions in those institutions.
Hmm, an interesting perspective, as ever, but I am not sure. I was at university in the late 70’s / early 80’s and, actually, most of us were not political, but there was a very visible contingent who were, mostly around left-wing causes and the re-emerging CND. None of this made a scrap of difference to how the 1980s turned out. I observed the decline in political observance in the 90s and generally considered it a good thing – the less politics the better.
However, I think the apathy argument falls down when we get to Brexit, which was opposed by the elites and educated classes as a bloc, and not just conceptually but viscerally. That generation is not nearly as de-politicised as the author suggests. Parliament, the legal profession, the civil service and the media mobilised groups such as the People’s Vote campaign and came within a hair’s breadth of overturning the referendum result. Similar forces are at play over blocking government policy on immigration, pushing net zero, promoting trans ideology and queering of schools.
I accept that our institutions may not be populated from top to bottom with student-union type woke activists. And people want to get on with their lives. But it is undoubtedly true that there are high-status opinions for virtue-signalling and opinions that are considered unacceptable (as many Brexit supporters will attest). And the predictably liberal nature of elite causes, the impact they are having, and the lack of counterbalance all suggest there must be a critical mass of motivated people in very influential and senior positions in those institutions.
It’s about time that someone made the important point that Thatcherism, with its prioritisation of personal advantage and fetishisation of hard work to that end gravely weakened social cohesion.
The great purge of corruption and nepotism in public and political life which characterised the mid and later nineteenth century was nothing if not morally driven within a framework of responsibility for the public good.
Morals were nothing if not concretely defined. “Improving the lot of the poor” meant better diet, better housing, better morals in the sense of refraining from public drunkeness. The great Quaker philanthropists building projects like Bourneville and Port Sunlight knew EXACTLY what they meant by “social justice” and it wasn’t self-definition of gender.
Nor was it a racially divided society, just a society in which there were very few coloured people and almost no Muslims. The navy recruited coloured seamen when they presented themselves. At least one became an officer of Post rank, he reached the professional limits common to many others of similar position – competence without exceptional ability, lack of “interest” in the sense of patronage and lack of plain fortuitous luck.
The great social housing projects of the early to mid twentieth century were another example. The great social reforms of the 1940s.
No, the problem is that the able and generally moral mid-upper and upper middle classes turned their backs on their fellow man, opening the way for the zealots and fanatics to prosper from the 1960s onward.
It was time for Thatcherism after all the left claptrap the country had to put up with.
I don’t think that Thatcher’s “prioritisation of personal advantage and fetishisation of hard work” have anything at all to do with the rise of wokedom.
Social cohesion in the UK had been weakening very clearly for twenty years before her election. Like any prime minister she inevitably made some mistakes along the way, but that wasn’t one of the them.
It was time for Thatcherism after all the left claptrap the country had to put up with.
I don’t think that Thatcher’s “prioritisation of personal advantage and fetishisation of hard work” have anything at all to do with the rise of wokedom.
Social cohesion in the UK had been weakening very clearly for twenty years before her election. Like any prime minister she inevitably made some mistakes along the way, but that wasn’t one of the them.
It’s about time that someone made the important point that Thatcherism, with its prioritisation of personal advantage and fetishisation of hard work to that end gravely weakened social cohesion.
The great purge of corruption and nepotism in public and political life which characterised the mid and later nineteenth century was nothing if not morally driven within a framework of responsibility for the public good.
Morals were nothing if not concretely defined. “Improving the lot of the poor” meant better diet, better housing, better morals in the sense of refraining from public drunkeness. The great Quaker philanthropists building projects like Bourneville and Port Sunlight knew EXACTLY what they meant by “social justice” and it wasn’t self-definition of gender.
Nor was it a racially divided society, just a society in which there were very few coloured people and almost no Muslims. The navy recruited coloured seamen when they presented themselves. At least one became an officer of Post rank, he reached the professional limits common to many others of similar position – competence without exceptional ability, lack of “interest” in the sense of patronage and lack of plain fortuitous luck.
The great social housing projects of the early to mid twentieth century were another example. The great social reforms of the 1940s.
No, the problem is that the able and generally moral mid-upper and upper middle classes turned their backs on their fellow man, opening the way for the zealots and fanatics to prosper from the 1960s onward.
From the outside, the effect is the same.
From the outside, the effect is the same.
Great to read such an insightful and balanced piece and to know that the author can still write so objectively after everything she’s been through.
The [relative] student de-politicisation has the ring of truth about it. I can easily understand how fatigue had set in – even with students – after the 1970s and 1980s.
But all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing …
And I think that the author is correct that the good people are doing nothing rather than actively being “woke”.
More of this sort of article please.
That phrase “all it takes…” immediately sprang to mind too after reading the article. Some things are universal, and it appears that the ways of activism are becoming much more clear as historical examples begin to pile up for inspection by those with the ability to do so.
That phrase “all it takes…” immediately sprang to mind too after reading the article. Some things are universal, and it appears that the ways of activism are becoming much more clear as historical examples begin to pile up for inspection by those with the ability to do so.
Great to read such an insightful and balanced piece and to know that the author can still write so objectively after everything she’s been through.
The [relative] student de-politicisation has the ring of truth about it. I can easily understand how fatigue had set in – even with students – after the 1970s and 1980s.
But all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing …
And I think that the author is correct that the good people are doing nothing rather than actively being “woke”.
More of this sort of article please.
“Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.”
My kids have tried this, but I always, always stand up to them.
My daughter and I have reached an unspoken agreement not to discuss any of the contentious issues of the day because it usually ends up in (her) tears. I did however ask her to buy me Douglas Murray’s War on the West for Christmas which she did without comment. This would suggest that we do indeed have an unspoken agreement, or, more likely, she doesn’t know who Douglas Murray is.
My daughter and I have reached an unspoken agreement not to discuss any of the contentious issues of the day because it usually ends up in (her) tears
How old is your daughter? Not discussing issues because people get upset is the first step on the road to apathy surely. Isn’t this kind of the problem in university that people can’t handle a debate?
It was when she was 16-17 or so and as she doesn’t live with me I didn’t want our limited time together arguing. But it was thanks to some of the nonsense she was spouting back then that I decided to do some research, fell down the rabbit hole and here I am.
It was when she was 16-17 or so and as she doesn’t live with me I didn’t want our limited time together arguing. But it was thanks to some of the nonsense she was spouting back then that I decided to do some research, fell down the rabbit hole and here I am.
My daughter and I have reached an unspoken agreement not to discuss any of the contentious issues of the day because it usually ends up in (her) tears
How old is your daughter? Not discussing issues because people get upset is the first step on the road to apathy surely. Isn’t this kind of the problem in university that people can’t handle a debate?
My daughter and I have reached an unspoken agreement not to discuss any of the contentious issues of the day because it usually ends up in (her) tears. I did however ask her to buy me Douglas Murray’s War on the West for Christmas which she did without comment. This would suggest that we do indeed have an unspoken agreement, or, more likely, she doesn’t know who Douglas Murray is.
“Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.”
My kids have tried this, but I always, always stand up to them.
The Germans have a word for the politically apathetic – the ones who run with the crowd for fear of the opprobrium that might come with actually taking a stand. The word is Mitläufer and it is very negative, since it implies at best lack of spine and at worst craven opportunism. So describing the liberal elite as more indifferent than rampantly woke does not let them off the hook. If anything it makes them still more contemptible.
As Reagan said, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.“
Being apathetic in the face of wrong doing makes a person extremely culpable.
Brilliant, thank you!
Previously I had always regarded: –
“ unten gefickt weihnachtsmann” as the ultimate German insult. Now I know better.
ahh not ” Achtung Donner und blitzen Englander pig dog vor u ze war iss over?”…War Picture Library circa 1964?
ahh not ” Achtung Donner und blitzen Englander pig dog vor u ze war iss over?”…War Picture Library circa 1964?
We certainly do not need people like that.
As Reagan said, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.“
Being apathetic in the face of wrong doing makes a person extremely culpable.
Brilliant, thank you!
Previously I had always regarded: –
“ unten gefickt weihnachtsmann” as the ultimate German insult. Now I know better.
We certainly do not need people like that.
The Germans have a word for the politically apathetic – the ones who run with the crowd for fear of the opprobrium that might come with actually taking a stand. The word is Mitläufer and it is very negative, since it implies at best lack of spine and at worst craven opportunism. So describing the liberal elite as more indifferent than rampantly woke does not let them off the hook. If anything it makes them still more contemptible.
“Their political inarticulacy has made the organisations they run ripe for power grabs but they are not directly waging any war.”
I wonder what kind of elite can be politically inarticulate and still qualify as elite.
And if Matthew Goodwin is wrong, then who is doing the power-grabbing?
It might seem tactless to ask, but I will: Where were Professor Stock’s colleagues when she was forced out of her post?
They couldn’t really be ar*ed about it.
Really Linda. Not the word for a young lady.
Really Linda. Not the word for a young lady.
They couldn’t really be ar*ed about it.
“Their political inarticulacy has made the organisations they run ripe for power grabs but they are not directly waging any war.”
I wonder what kind of elite can be politically inarticulate and still qualify as elite.
And if Matthew Goodwin is wrong, then who is doing the power-grabbing?
It might seem tactless to ask, but I will: Where were Professor Stock’s colleagues when she was forced out of her post?
This is exactly how radical Bolshevist (in the sense of being uncompromisingly and sometimes violently intolerant of opposition) movements overcome institutions in which they are outnumbered. To advance its agenda and like viruses turn the institution to their own ends, they count on the other side’s good manners, moderate tolerance, and, most of all, its blase unawareness that there even ARE two sides at all.
This is an important point; that the mental landscape inhabited by the radical left is quite incomprehensible to the majority of the population. Their aims and goals, methods and values make no sense at all, in terms of the quotidian pursuit of daily survival and a modest level of security and prosperity.
The problem with THIS is the seemingly boundless ability of the lower middle classes, and much of the working classes to flatly reject the evidence of their own eyes and ears. The radical left have been screaming abuse in their faces for decades, yet STILL they blink mildly and murmur “No, that can’t be right”; to those who try to rally them, they murmur judgmentally “oh, don’t talk nonsense”.
True, except that in America, now, it’s mostly the lower middle class and the working class who have finally begun to reject this kind of abuse, by turning to Trump and populism. For us, it’s the upper middle class, especially white women, who simply refuse to accept that their comfortable world is being steadily disassembled by people they support, but who hate them.
True, except that in America, now, it’s mostly the lower middle class and the working class who have finally begun to reject this kind of abuse, by turning to Trump and populism. For us, it’s the upper middle class, especially white women, who simply refuse to accept that their comfortable world is being steadily disassembled by people they support, but who hate them.
This is an important point; that the mental landscape inhabited by the radical left is quite incomprehensible to the majority of the population. Their aims and goals, methods and values make no sense at all, in terms of the quotidian pursuit of daily survival and a modest level of security and prosperity.
The problem with THIS is the seemingly boundless ability of the lower middle classes, and much of the working classes to flatly reject the evidence of their own eyes and ears. The radical left have been screaming abuse in their faces for decades, yet STILL they blink mildly and murmur “No, that can’t be right”; to those who try to rally them, they murmur judgmentally “oh, don’t talk nonsense”.
This is exactly how radical Bolshevist (in the sense of being uncompromisingly and sometimes violently intolerant of opposition) movements overcome institutions in which they are outnumbered. To advance its agenda and like viruses turn the institution to their own ends, they count on the other side’s good manners, moderate tolerance, and, most of all, its blase unawareness that there even ARE two sides at all.
Normally, I enjoy Katherine’s opinions but she shoots well wide this time. I can agree that the majority of the metro middle class of her generation, now in senior positions, enjoy their privileges without allowing their conscience or concerns about social justice or the environment get in the way. But… the tone and rules are set by the minority who were activists while she binge watched Neighbours in the JCR. They dominate the media and academia (as she well knows!). They make the mistake of allowing the strident in HR and PR set company policy and positioning. Who was ejected when the head of PWC accused consultants of being wimps and slackers? Who signs off on Diversity Equality and Inclusion policies that lead to wholesale self censorship where the vast majority of well balanced tolerant liberal minded folk live in fear of being one ironically oiled slip of the tongue away from being accused of being fascists, racists, Daily Mail readers, boys club, white, male, privileged etc. In companies like Unilever, where I worked, the pressure to conform to new pronoun norms is irresistible. When I attended a tax conference held by the IFS at Worcester college last week attended by lawyers, accountants, academics and think tankers (who all knew their way around formal hall), I barely escaped from an unguarded comment about the £2bn a year the UK spends putting up asylum seekers in hotels, (phew nearly..). Sorry but Katherine needs to make more space for Matthew.
Precisely, well said Sir.
Precisely, well said Sir.
Normally, I enjoy Katherine’s opinions but she shoots well wide this time. I can agree that the majority of the metro middle class of her generation, now in senior positions, enjoy their privileges without allowing their conscience or concerns about social justice or the environment get in the way. But… the tone and rules are set by the minority who were activists while she binge watched Neighbours in the JCR. They dominate the media and academia (as she well knows!). They make the mistake of allowing the strident in HR and PR set company policy and positioning. Who was ejected when the head of PWC accused consultants of being wimps and slackers? Who signs off on Diversity Equality and Inclusion policies that lead to wholesale self censorship where the vast majority of well balanced tolerant liberal minded folk live in fear of being one ironically oiled slip of the tongue away from being accused of being fascists, racists, Daily Mail readers, boys club, white, male, privileged etc. In companies like Unilever, where I worked, the pressure to conform to new pronoun norms is irresistible. When I attended a tax conference held by the IFS at Worcester college last week attended by lawyers, accountants, academics and think tankers (who all knew their way around formal hall), I barely escaped from an unguarded comment about the £2bn a year the UK spends putting up asylum seekers in hotels, (phew nearly..). Sorry but Katherine needs to make more space for Matthew.
One novel aspect of these strange times we live in, is senior staff bowing down to demands of their subordinates. “We can’t publish that book as the junior staff wouldn’t like it”
I wonder what would happen if a junior member of staff at the JCB factory told Lord Bamford that they couldn’t build any more back hoe loaders as he, the junior member of staff, objects to machinery that runs on diesel.
One novel aspect of these strange times we live in, is senior staff bowing down to demands of their subordinates. “We can’t publish that book as the junior staff wouldn’t like it”
I wonder what would happen if a junior member of staff at the JCB factory told Lord Bamford that they couldn’t build any more back hoe loaders as he, the junior member of staff, objects to machinery that runs on diesel.
Nearly 7 hours ago I wrote a long reply, having read Goodwin’s book and been one of the few voices praising it on Twitter. That reply was removed within seconds for reasons that aren’t clear to me.
Anyway, rather than risk repeating whatever offence I committed, I’ll just leave a link to Ed West’s take, just published, and who is rather more articulate than me.
https://edwest.substack.com/p/the-eternal-rebels
A good piece by Ed West. Matthew Goodwin has certainly stirred a hornet’s nest. As the old war-time saying had it “When the flak is at its heaviest, you know you’re over the target”.
Indeed. Most people enraged about his book have, I suspect, not actually read it.
Goodwin was recently interviewed on Triggernometry about his book. Seemed very sensible to me.
Excellent interview.
I have two go-to sites. Triggernometry and, for the war in Ukraine, Perun.
Excellent interview.
I have two go-to sites. Triggernometry and, for the war in Ukraine, Perun.
Goodwin was recently interviewed on Triggernometry about his book. Seemed very sensible to me.
Indeed. Most people enraged about his book have, I suspect, not actually read it.
After 11 hours, my long reply has now been published. You’ll find it below somewhere.
A good piece by Ed West. Matthew Goodwin has certainly stirred a hornet’s nest. As the old war-time saying had it “When the flak is at its heaviest, you know you’re over the target”.
After 11 hours, my long reply has now been published. You’ll find it below somewhere.
Nearly 7 hours ago I wrote a long reply, having read Goodwin’s book and been one of the few voices praising it on Twitter. That reply was removed within seconds for reasons that aren’t clear to me.
Anyway, rather than risk repeating whatever offence I committed, I’ll just leave a link to Ed West’s take, just published, and who is rather more articulate than me.
https://edwest.substack.com/p/the-eternal-rebels
Suggest that (re)reading The History Man by Malcolm Bradbury, pub 1975, should be compulsory for those entering this discussion. Plus ça change – ineffective liberals challenged by often self-serving radicals.
Absolutely. I read this book back in the 1970s, and I was horrified. I expect I was not very aware of what was going on the the Social “Science” and Humanities departments as I was a STEM person, but I remember thinking that either this was all exaggerated, or this is so unacceptable, that it will be stopped soon by those in power. Foolish, foolish me.
Absolutely. I read this book back in the 1970s, and I was horrified. I expect I was not very aware of what was going on the the Social “Science” and Humanities departments as I was a STEM person, but I remember thinking that either this was all exaggerated, or this is so unacceptable, that it will be stopped soon by those in power. Foolish, foolish me.
Suggest that (re)reading The History Man by Malcolm Bradbury, pub 1975, should be compulsory for those entering this discussion. Plus ça change – ineffective liberals challenged by often self-serving radicals.
Mea culpa (in more ways than one!). I am one of the few on Twitter to have made a positive comment about Goodwin’s book, which I listened to a day or two after it was published.
I found it a good read/listen, extensively researched, and I recommend others read it. I have been through a bit of a transformation in recent years, and I confess to having previously held some of the elitist attitudes that Goodwin points out (and I was once a Russell Group academic). In particular, the book contains probably the best analysis of Brexit that I have yet read (another mea culpa, because immediately post-Brexit, I thought O’Toole had it broadly right in his book). However, my opinions have changed, and I have gone from being a (reluctant) remainer to somebody who would firmly oppose future EU membership.
I think KS makes a fair point that many of my or her contemporaries are probably apathetic but Goodwin is writing about those whose views dominate. Just as a small noisy group of gender ideologues have been allowed to dominate the discourse and determine public policy, many legacy media journalists and the Twitterati have settled on a view that portrays Brexit voters as ignorant, racist gammons who believed a lie on the side of a bus. That was, to some extent, my view post-Brexit too, but I have changed my opinion and realised my error,
I understand why the Twitterati have railed against Goodwin’s book (almost entirely in ignorance of its actual content, which I can tell they have not read); it is largely because it is directed at them (or their majority view), coloured by the fact that Goodwin does not characterise populism as the refuge of ‘far right’ deplorables but as a reasonable political philosophy/attitude.
I agree too that many of my contemporaries are probably not ‘woke’ either. However, due to the woke ideologues, most of them would probably not publicly admit to views that would likely be subject to criticism or shaming attempts. Maybe that is apathy; maybe it is moral cowardice; maybe it is simply that they don’t wish to jeopardise their careers or their legacy.
My view is probably too personal, and I am guilty of extrapolating too much from (what I view to be) my own past moral failings, but there it is. Mea culpa.
Finally, 11 hours after I wrote this, it is published. I have received an apology.
There is much rejoicing in the house of my father over the return of the prodigal academic.
Thanks for making me smile!
Haha, glad to oblige!
Haha, glad to oblige!
Thanks for making me smile!
Well you are to be congratulated on your admission of a Damascene conversion! Bravo!
Not many these days have the moral fibre to say they were wrong, and thus potentially to risk eternal vilification, but you have restored my faith, thank you indeed.
Well done for keeping an open mind. Publicly changing your position takes a lot of determination, the cognitive dissonance as you settle in the new position is disturbing at first. But the sense of freedom and clarity afterwards makes it well worth making the jump. Keeping open the potential to change your mind is the key!
Finally, 11 hours after I wrote this, it is published. I have received an apology.
There is much rejoicing in the house of my father over the return of the prodigal academic.
Well you are to be congratulated on your admission of a Damascene conversion! Bravo!
Not many these days have the moral fibre to say they were wrong, and thus potentially to risk eternal vilification, but you have restored my faith, thank you indeed.
Well done for keeping an open mind. Publicly changing your position takes a lot of determination, the cognitive dissonance as you settle in the new position is disturbing at first. But the sense of freedom and clarity afterwards makes it well worth making the jump. Keeping open the potential to change your mind is the key!
Mea culpa (in more ways than one!). I am one of the few on Twitter to have made a positive comment about Goodwin’s book, which I listened to a day or two after it was published.
I found it a good read/listen, extensively researched, and I recommend others read it. I have been through a bit of a transformation in recent years, and I confess to having previously held some of the elitist attitudes that Goodwin points out (and I was once a Russell Group academic). In particular, the book contains probably the best analysis of Brexit that I have yet read (another mea culpa, because immediately post-Brexit, I thought O’Toole had it broadly right in his book). However, my opinions have changed, and I have gone from being a (reluctant) remainer to somebody who would firmly oppose future EU membership.
I think KS makes a fair point that many of my or her contemporaries are probably apathetic but Goodwin is writing about those whose views dominate. Just as a small noisy group of gender ideologues have been allowed to dominate the discourse and determine public policy, many legacy media journalists and the Twitterati have settled on a view that portrays Brexit voters as ignorant, racist gammons who believed a lie on the side of a bus. That was, to some extent, my view post-Brexit too, but I have changed my opinion and realised my error,
I understand why the Twitterati have railed against Goodwin’s book (almost entirely in ignorance of its actual content, which I can tell they have not read); it is largely because it is directed at them (or their majority view), coloured by the fact that Goodwin does not characterise populism as the refuge of ‘far right’ deplorables but as a reasonable political philosophy/attitude.
I agree too that many of my contemporaries are probably not ‘woke’ either. However, due to the woke ideologues, most of them would probably not publicly admit to views that would likely be subject to criticism or shaming attempts. Maybe that is apathy; maybe it is moral cowardice; maybe it is simply that they don’t wish to jeopardise their careers or their legacy.
My view is probably too personal, and I am guilty of extrapolating too much from (what I view to be) my own past moral failings, but there it is. Mea culpa.
There’s another angle to this which most of us pussyfoot round, not least the easy-going elite who Kathleen refers to, and that is bossy, interfering women increasingly dominating workplaces and institutions!
Most of this wokeness, and over-compensating obsession with minority rights, and intrusive “safety” legislation, verging on oppressive, seemed to take off at about the same time women became more numerous in white collar employment, whether monopolising HR and media departments, and in politics.
And if one looks at any daft woke initiative today, such as an innocuous word we are no longer supposed to use for fear of causing offence, it nearly always turns out that a woman is behind the proposed sanction.
Not being a psychologist, and not having given it much study or thought, it’s hard for me to pin down why this should be so (assuming it is, which may be open to debate!), but maybe more developed nurturing instincts could be behind it.
I’m not saying women in the workplace is a Bad Thing. In my experience they are usually better at organising things and are more efficient than most men.
Yes and feminist dogma was so entrenched it was not even considered political.
Yes and feminist dogma was so entrenched it was not even considered political.
There’s another angle to this which most of us pussyfoot round, not least the easy-going elite who Kathleen refers to, and that is bossy, interfering women increasingly dominating workplaces and institutions!
Most of this wokeness, and over-compensating obsession with minority rights, and intrusive “safety” legislation, verging on oppressive, seemed to take off at about the same time women became more numerous in white collar employment, whether monopolising HR and media departments, and in politics.
And if one looks at any daft woke initiative today, such as an innocuous word we are no longer supposed to use for fear of causing offence, it nearly always turns out that a woman is behind the proposed sanction.
Not being a psychologist, and not having given it much study or thought, it’s hard for me to pin down why this should be so (assuming it is, which may be open to debate!), but maybe more developed nurturing instincts could be behind it.
I’m not saying women in the workplace is a Bad Thing. In my experience they are usually better at organising things and are more efficient than most men.
the social horsehoe that links the upper classes and working classes, is still alive and well: drinking, betting, racing, swearing, hunting, whoreing, long dogs and terriers and Toyota hi-lux….and a sense of humour about themselves. The big change is the lower- middle to middle invasion, headed by the grammar school Oxbridge species, now run the ToileTory party and more and more businesses, and take out the inferiority they felt when first going up to Oxford and Cambridge on others for the rest of their ” ooh what will the neighbours think” lives.
Precisely, despite all this modern hysteria, that ‘Horseshoe’ remains unbroken and is the ultimate strength of this nation and should be nurtured NOT vilified. Without it ‘we’ would count for nothing!.
Precisely, despite all this modern hysteria, that ‘Horseshoe’ remains unbroken and is the ultimate strength of this nation and should be nurtured NOT vilified. Without it ‘we’ would count for nothing!.
the social horsehoe that links the upper classes and working classes, is still alive and well: drinking, betting, racing, swearing, hunting, whoreing, long dogs and terriers and Toyota hi-lux….and a sense of humour about themselves. The big change is the lower- middle to middle invasion, headed by the grammar school Oxbridge species, now run the ToileTory party and more and more businesses, and take out the inferiority they felt when first going up to Oxford and Cambridge on others for the rest of their ” ooh what will the neighbours think” lives.
The problem with this article is that it doesn’t really differentiate between the two meanings of the statement “The British elite is woke”. (To be fair, maybe the book doesn’t, either; I haven’t read it, so can’t really comment.)
On the one hand, it might mean that the members of the British elite are all, or mostly, woke individuals. If understood in that sense, the statement appears to be incorrect — as Professor Stock says, most of the British elites are apathetic conformists who don’t really have strong beliefs.
On the other hand, it might mean that, as a body, the British elite advances woke policies. Understood in this sense, I think the statement is quite clearly correct. And because it refers to the actions of the body as a whole, the precise proportion of true believers vs. apathetic conformists doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that the true believers are the ones setting the overall tone.
The problem with this article is that it doesn’t really differentiate between the two meanings of the statement “The British elite is woke”. (To be fair, maybe the book doesn’t, either; I haven’t read it, so can’t really comment.)
On the one hand, it might mean that the members of the British elite are all, or mostly, woke individuals. If understood in that sense, the statement appears to be incorrect — as Professor Stock says, most of the British elites are apathetic conformists who don’t really have strong beliefs.
On the other hand, it might mean that, as a body, the British elite advances woke policies. Understood in this sense, I think the statement is quite clearly correct. And because it refers to the actions of the body as a whole, the precise proportion of true believers vs. apathetic conformists doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that the true believers are the ones setting the overall tone.
So basically the excuse for all this top down progressive crap from America is because our ‘elite’ actually couldn’t be arsed with politics and have no opinion on any of it.
Why did they bother going to Oxford.
I think there’s a lot to this. Education was fun, a rite of passage, a way to a good job in finance or law. The ethical framework of knowledge, morality and purpose had been whittled away for decades, with extra vim in the 1960s. By the end of the century, our cultural cupboard was pretty bare. The cupboard was standing but that was all.
Yes, I am bashing academics at the moment (I have also defended them and our universities I would like to say) but apathy is not unique to any set of people to be fair either. Like you say, a lot to this.
Still, this does seem to be getting out of hand in academia, apathy is a poor excuse from people that are supposed to be intelligent and well educated. Especially when our universities, which I think are an important part of democracy in a way, we need people that understand wtf they are doing after all, seem in a very sorry state regarding freedom of speech and such. Apathy as an excuse grinds my gears, I don’t think oxford is really a bare cultural cupboard is it?
What happened in the sixties that you think destroyed the ‘ethical framework’ then? The sixties predate me by thirty years, I’m not being obnoxious, just curious.
I don’t know if this answers your question at all, but there used to be a notion of service. Eton used to be proud of producing scientists. I remember reading that one year, pretty much every boy who had left Eton that year had gone into finance – none had gone into science. I think it was about ten years ago. Could well be longer. When I was at school in the early seventies everyone who could do science, male or female, was expected to do science O levels ( chemistry, biology, physics) on the basis the country needed scientists – nothing to do with feminism. I actually worked in computing, in AI for a while.
Thanks, yes I have heard that finance is a bit of brain drain in that people go into it because the pay is normally better than if they pursued other things, but this is still not explaining really what happened in the sixties that destroyed the ‘ethical framework’.
I feel like it doesn’t really explain the apathy either, or why our British universities now are not upholding basic democratic principles like freedom of speech or why these progressive movements have gained so much traction in academia. I don’t know, I feel like we are going badly wrong somewhere, worrying about all the wrong issues.
Eton produced Mr Rolls of Rolls Royce fame!
He was also the first Englishman to be killed in a plane crash, at the Bournemouth Air Show in 1908!
Thanks, yes I have heard that finance is a bit of brain drain in that people go into it because the pay is normally better than if they pursued other things, but this is still not explaining really what happened in the sixties that destroyed the ‘ethical framework’.
I feel like it doesn’t really explain the apathy either, or why our British universities now are not upholding basic democratic principles like freedom of speech or why these progressive movements have gained so much traction in academia. I don’t know, I feel like we are going badly wrong somewhere, worrying about all the wrong issues.
Eton produced Mr Rolls of Rolls Royce fame!
He was also the first Englishman to be killed in a plane crash, at the Bournemouth Air Show in 1908!
What happened was that my generation decided to rebel. It was the first generation after the War that didn’t have to be trained, drilled or deal with our survival as a nation. So we rebelled and threw the baby out with the bath water. I didn’t by the way but folk like me were seen as hopelessly out of touch. The 2020s generation is left with the pieces.
Rebellion and apathy are not the same thing at all. If you were all so rebellious how did you get so apathetic?
I’m not sure about ‘ it was the first generation after the War that didn’t have to be trained, drilled or deal with our survival as a nation’, is that a historical fact? What about the consequences of the world wars on society? Britain was pretty badly flattened, we had seen massive changes because of the industrial revolution and then two world wars split families and communities up all over the place, whole parts of our cities were destroyed, I feel that is important to consider perhaps?
Rebellion and apathy are not the same thing at all. If you were all so rebellious how did you get so apathetic?
I’m not sure about ‘ it was the first generation after the War that didn’t have to be trained, drilled or deal with our survival as a nation’, is that a historical fact? What about the consequences of the world wars on society? Britain was pretty badly flattened, we had seen massive changes because of the industrial revolution and then two world wars split families and communities up all over the place, whole parts of our cities were destroyed, I feel that is important to consider perhaps?
I think what we – our elites (and as a graduate in a profession I am probably guilty too) have lost sight of the meaning of things. That may be a loss of faith, and a loss of the ideals of service and sacrifice. Knowledge, culture, memory, all have an intrinsic value worth pursuing. A collective sense of things being good or bad. Which is why our elites cannot respond to the militant minority. If values and opinions are all of equal worth, we cannot say ‘no’ with authority.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. ‘If values and opinions are all of equal worth, we cannot say ‘no’ with authority’ – the point is that apparently the ‘elite’ are apathetic and have no opinion. Surely the point of going to somewhere like oxford is so you can learn how to formulate an informed opinion. Not having an opinion on something stinks of lazy apathy, of course you can say no with authority if you have formulated an informed and reasoned opinion on something. If your opinion is misinformed and unreasonable people will not listen and it would not be considered equal to an informed and reasoned opinion would it?
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. ‘If values and opinions are all of equal worth, we cannot say ‘no’ with authority’ – the point is that apparently the ‘elite’ are apathetic and have no opinion. Surely the point of going to somewhere like oxford is so you can learn how to formulate an informed opinion. Not having an opinion on something stinks of lazy apathy, of course you can say no with authority if you have formulated an informed and reasoned opinion on something. If your opinion is misinformed and unreasonable people will not listen and it would not be considered equal to an informed and reasoned opinion would it?
I don’t know if this answers your question at all, but there used to be a notion of service. Eton used to be proud of producing scientists. I remember reading that one year, pretty much every boy who had left Eton that year had gone into finance – none had gone into science. I think it was about ten years ago. Could well be longer. When I was at school in the early seventies everyone who could do science, male or female, was expected to do science O levels ( chemistry, biology, physics) on the basis the country needed scientists – nothing to do with feminism. I actually worked in computing, in AI for a while.
What happened was that my generation decided to rebel. It was the first generation after the War that didn’t have to be trained, drilled or deal with our survival as a nation. So we rebelled and threw the baby out with the bath water. I didn’t by the way but folk like me were seen as hopelessly out of touch. The 2020s generation is left with the pieces.
I think what we – our elites (and as a graduate in a profession I am probably guilty too) have lost sight of the meaning of things. That may be a loss of faith, and a loss of the ideals of service and sacrifice. Knowledge, culture, memory, all have an intrinsic value worth pursuing. A collective sense of things being good or bad. Which is why our elites cannot respond to the militant minority. If values and opinions are all of equal worth, we cannot say ‘no’ with authority.
Yes, I am bashing academics at the moment (I have also defended them and our universities I would like to say) but apathy is not unique to any set of people to be fair either. Like you say, a lot to this.
Still, this does seem to be getting out of hand in academia, apathy is a poor excuse from people that are supposed to be intelligent and well educated. Especially when our universities, which I think are an important part of democracy in a way, we need people that understand wtf they are doing after all, seem in a very sorry state regarding freedom of speech and such. Apathy as an excuse grinds my gears, I don’t think oxford is really a bare cultural cupboard is it?
What happened in the sixties that you think destroyed the ‘ethical framework’ then? The sixties predate me by thirty years, I’m not being obnoxious, just curious.
so their parents could impress the neighbours
I think we have become complacent.
I think we have become complacent.
I think there’s a lot to this. Education was fun, a rite of passage, a way to a good job in finance or law. The ethical framework of knowledge, morality and purpose had been whittled away for decades, with extra vim in the 1960s. By the end of the century, our cultural cupboard was pretty bare. The cupboard was standing but that was all.
so their parents could impress the neighbours
So basically the excuse for all this top down progressive crap from America is because our ‘elite’ actually couldn’t be arsed with politics and have no opinion on any of it.
Why did they bother going to Oxford.
Given all the opportunities but failed society – Arrogance, Ignorance and Greed.
Given all the opportunities but failed society – Arrogance, Ignorance and Greed.
Brilliantly eloquent from Ms Stock, as usual. I am of the same age, and a University graduate who recognises her description of the time.
Brilliantly eloquent from Ms Stock, as usual. I am of the same age, and a University graduate who recognises her description of the time.
I wonder if their wokeness or not is relevant. There is little doubt that their failure or reluctant to tackle the hardware woke has led to the shape of the world today.
The elite are powerful, even if it’s just being a head of HR who creates an atmosphere of fear for people making stupid jokes.
I wonder if their wokeness or not is relevant. There is little doubt that their failure or reluctant to tackle the hardware woke has led to the shape of the world today.
The elite are powerful, even if it’s just being a head of HR who creates an atmosphere of fear for people making stupid jokes.
It’s completely wrong abut the timing. The liberal elite (I suspect I invented the cliche) was already in existence and mainly in charge in 1999, when I published my ‘The Abolition of Britain’. This stuff originates in the 1960s, not the 1990s.
1961 would be my guess?
1961 would be my guess?
It’s completely wrong abut the timing. The liberal elite (I suspect I invented the cliche) was already in existence and mainly in charge in 1999, when I published my ‘The Abolition of Britain’. This stuff originates in the 1960s, not the 1990s.
“What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke.”
My advice is that we always address progressives and activists as “you people”, and go out of our way to make the wrong joke as often as possible.
“What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke.”
My advice is that we always address progressives and activists as “you people”, and go out of our way to make the wrong joke as often as possible.
In terms of culture and voting intention the so called liberal elite are as outnumbered as those who use Twitter politically. Liberal thinking emancipated Africa without replacing the white influence. Unless warlords, swiss bank accounts for corrupt politicians, poverty, poor health and dirty water were the objective, which I doubt.
I have yet to see a university course on how to run a country so why do we listen?
The current trends, by or pro activist minorities highlights the indifference of the majority. Sheep don’t get to choose their shepherds but now we seem unable to differentiate between wolf and shepherd.
In terms of culture and voting intention the so called liberal elite are as outnumbered as those who use Twitter politically. Liberal thinking emancipated Africa without replacing the white influence. Unless warlords, swiss bank accounts for corrupt politicians, poverty, poor health and dirty water were the objective, which I doubt.
I have yet to see a university course on how to run a country so why do we listen?
The current trends, by or pro activist minorities highlights the indifference of the majority. Sheep don’t get to choose their shepherds but now we seem unable to differentiate between wolf and shepherd.
I would agree with her on the point she makes about socialising, going out drinking, getting drunk pre Blair. The generation now post Blair eat drink and sleep politics. And they wonder why today it’s all about “mental health” caused by their constant neurosis.
Let’s not forget the part played by Unions particularly at University who indoctrinate these young people into anti Capitalist, left leaning Woke warriors. Today the prestigious British Medical Association is run by Momentum supporting Corbynites. Why even the Marxist Unite Union has an affiliation with a Doctors Union (Doctors in Unite). Their members are priming themselves for position of influence. Slowly but surely they will despatch Starmer and rule the Labour Party again. In my eyes these are the new Elite in stealth mode. Meanwhile the Tories continue in sleep mode.
. And they wonder why today it’s all about “mental health” caused by their constant neurosis.
Constant neurosis. Wow. So political apathy gave us Blair. Now we are at the point where the state if it so chooses can tell you not to leave your home. We are standing on the brink of a massive geopolitical power shift which, to be honest, the west seems ill prepared for, and you say young people are neurotic. I feel like the state is neurotic. I think we need less apathy and more people interested.
. The generation now post Blair eat drink and sleep politics
Thank you, I am pretty sure we did the drinking too, most of which I can’t even remember it was that good.
It’s kind of hard to miss the politics these days, what with enforced lockdowns, vaccinations, cancel culture, some very confused and militant political movements, the shambles that has seen us loose two prime ministers, the banking problems, the wars. This does not give me, personally, mental issues, it’s just interesting. Were these things a problem then? Before Blair?
. And they wonder why today it’s all about “mental health” caused by their constant neurosis.
Constant neurosis. Wow. So political apathy gave us Blair. Now we are at the point where the state if it so chooses can tell you not to leave your home. We are standing on the brink of a massive geopolitical power shift which, to be honest, the west seems ill prepared for, and you say young people are neurotic. I feel like the state is neurotic. I think we need less apathy and more people interested.
. The generation now post Blair eat drink and sleep politics
Thank you, I am pretty sure we did the drinking too, most of which I can’t even remember it was that good.
It’s kind of hard to miss the politics these days, what with enforced lockdowns, vaccinations, cancel culture, some very confused and militant political movements, the shambles that has seen us loose two prime ministers, the banking problems, the wars. This does not give me, personally, mental issues, it’s just interesting. Were these things a problem then? Before Blair?
I would agree with her on the point she makes about socialising, going out drinking, getting drunk pre Blair. The generation now post Blair eat drink and sleep politics. And they wonder why today it’s all about “mental health” caused by their constant neurosis.
Let’s not forget the part played by Unions particularly at University who indoctrinate these young people into anti Capitalist, left leaning Woke warriors. Today the prestigious British Medical Association is run by Momentum supporting Corbynites. Why even the Marxist Unite Union has an affiliation with a Doctors Union (Doctors in Unite). Their members are priming themselves for position of influence. Slowly but surely they will despatch Starmer and rule the Labour Party again. In my eyes these are the new Elite in stealth mode. Meanwhile the Tories continue in sleep mode.
The thing is, there are multiple elites: woke, liberal, educated elites; super-rich elites, establishment elites, right-wing nouveau riche elites.
The thing is, there are multiple elites: woke, liberal, educated elites; super-rich elites, establishment elites, right-wing nouveau riche elites.
Excellent insight. The indifferent managerial class, as well as the activist Right, both lack a political vocabulary with which to counter the woke Left. This is why they flounder. They can’t talk about protecting civil society from the woke Left because they don’t have a concept of civil society to work with. And without it, they are incapable of resistance to it.
Which is where the traditional One Nation right and indeed the Christian and Jewish right come in as they value community and a connected civil society of core values
Which is where the traditional One Nation right and indeed the Christian and Jewish right come in as they value community and a connected civil society of core values
Excellent insight. The indifferent managerial class, as well as the activist Right, both lack a political vocabulary with which to counter the woke Left. This is why they flounder. They can’t talk about protecting civil society from the woke Left because they don’t have a concept of civil society to work with. And without it, they are incapable of resistance to it.
Brilliant. There is a simple solution. Forcibly retire Dr Stock’s generation, no, make them the personal carers for us septuagenarians and octogenarians. We would soon put this woke business to rights, being prejudiced and antediluvian. And most of us don’t do social media so no problem with trolling etc. Just as long as we can have our after lunch naps and get paid wonderful salaries. We’re most of us still up for a challenge.
But that would leave the next generation in charge, and they are the ones advocating for all this “wokism”. Perhaps we nee to get all the septuagenarians and octogenarians back into the work place and in charge. 🙂
But that would leave the next generation in charge, and they are the ones advocating for all this “wokism”. Perhaps we nee to get all the septuagenarians and octogenarians back into the work place and in charge. 🙂
Brilliant. There is a simple solution. Forcibly retire Dr Stock’s generation, no, make them the personal carers for us septuagenarians and octogenarians. We would soon put this woke business to rights, being prejudiced and antediluvian. And most of us don’t do social media so no problem with trolling etc. Just as long as we can have our after lunch naps and get paid wonderful salaries. We’re most of us still up for a challenge.
The second paragraph in this article made me laugh out loud. Top ten paragraphs of 2023 for sure. 10 points Kathleen Stock.
The second paragraph in this article made me laugh out loud. Top ten paragraphs of 2023 for sure. 10 points Kathleen Stock.
As usual – excellent article. Makes me think and laugh in equal measure.
As usual – excellent article. Makes me think and laugh in equal measure.
Great column, very incisive. Thanks,Kat
Great column, very incisive. Thanks,Kat
What has happened to all the comments of John TWITTER Murray?
What has happened to all the comments of John TWITTER Murray?
Kathleen, do you know Matthew Goodwin personally? I have a feeling you’d enjoy talking with each other.
Kathleen, do you know Matthew Goodwin personally? I have a feeling you’d enjoy talking with each other.
This was good. It was also amusing and you are probably right. In any event, I am glad to to take your word for it…
This was good. It was also amusing and you are probably right. In any event, I am glad to to take your word for it…
The anti-politics stance taken by us Gen Xers came at a cost, as this article cogently argues.
I was at Durham in the late 1980’s and Stocks description of many of her peer group chimes with the experience I’ve had with my peer group from a few years earlier, even though we had Thatcher ’87 and at the peak of her powers. The Student Union radicals were seen as risible.
Neighbours in the JCR was a trip down memory lane though, so thanks for that!
The anti-politics stance taken by us Gen Xers came at a cost, as this article cogently argues.
I was at Durham in the late 1980’s and Stocks description of many of her peer group chimes with the experience I’ve had with my peer group from a few years earlier, even though we had Thatcher ’87 and at the peak of her powers. The Student Union radicals were seen as risible.
Neighbours in the JCR was a trip down memory lane though, so thanks for that!
In other words: the parents have become children, and the children parents. The leaders are followers of the actual leaders.
In other words: the parents have become children, and the children parents. The leaders are followers of the actual leaders.
Ok so the elites are not the Woke crowd but it is apparent that they drift and are not qualified to stand up to the Woke crowd not having the passion to do so. Nevertheless it is certainly in the universities which covers all classes these days. As to why it is so entrenched in the Tory party (but more in the Labour party) is anybody’s guess. All I know is that my tory MP is completely Woke and always wins because she is in a safe tory seat. It is the party’s fault for putting her up all the time. Give us a non Woke party to vote for (and non globalist party) and we should see a change in this country or at least that is what I hope for.
Ok so the elites are not the Woke crowd but it is apparent that they drift and are not qualified to stand up to the Woke crowd not having the passion to do so. Nevertheless it is certainly in the universities which covers all classes these days. As to why it is so entrenched in the Tory party (but more in the Labour party) is anybody’s guess. All I know is that my tory MP is completely Woke and always wins because she is in a safe tory seat. It is the party’s fault for putting her up all the time. Give us a non Woke party to vote for (and non globalist party) and we should see a change in this country or at least that is what I hope for.
Kathleen refers to the liberal elite in the article quite often but MG is I believe more focused on the progressive intolerant liberals who occupy the same space and who many struggle to confront in any meaningful way
Kathleen refers to the liberal elite in the article quite often but MG is I believe more focused on the progressive intolerant liberals who occupy the same space and who many struggle to confront in any meaningful way
As a person who never lived in the UK, I found Ms Stock’s article most insightful. As is the discussion which shows to what extent the class structure.remains UK-specific, along with the proportion that took wokeisme – and its perception as a threat.
I studied natural (as opposed to social) sciences and tend to view the ‘wokeisme’ as an evolutionary pendulum swing – a natural, yet uneven, reaction of the humankind to the quantum leap in the amount of/exposure to knowledge.
As far as I can judge, it is not perceived in the same way in the continental Europe, let alone the rest of the (non-Anglo-Saxon) world. I happen to be born and brough up in the country which is ostantatiously and agressively ‘anti-woke’. It is also one where, these days, a teen who walks out with a blanc sheet is immediately taken in custody. I bet none of the UnHerd free-thinking crowd would want to live there.
P.S. Just an observation. Prof Stock mentions that, at the time of her studies, in the early 90s, ‘there were hardly any girls’. While it has since changed in the universities, it looks as though it is still the case with the UnHerd commentators’ cohort, whatever the class the believe to belong to 🙂
I see there is a lot of space about how different generation a is to generation b, and that this difference is conditioned by technology. That is for the birds. There are rights and wrongs which are consistent over time. For instance, riding a horse or riding a bike are two different activities, and both have certain rules. Take the horse; stand on the back of your horse and try to leap a fence requires a very high level of skill to stay on, just as standing on the crossbar and swerving at the bottom of the hill into the crossroads requires both skill and luck. Both differ. But the common point is that both are rather loopy. Ditto sleeping around, and thinking that you are not a human being, but a machine to f**k You are a human, and there are plenty of rules of thumb to guide you on the way. Transgressing those rules of thumb, developed by experience over the millennia, entails costs. So, the advice is, don’t. .
In the UK we have a tax system that prioritises capital over work, and is remarkably easy to game if you’re rich enough; the schools where most of our kids go are underfunded and can’t get sufficient teachers but we give tax breaks to private schools where a third of the pupils come from overseas; utilities essential to our safety and security are largely owned by foreign investors so with our water tens of billions of dividends flow out of the country while we can’t swim on our beaches or rivers because of discharged sewage and our train service in the North of England is a joke but we pay dividends to the Italian Railway, part owners of Avanti.
We have the largest regional inequality in Europe and a massive trade deficit because we don’t make or produce enough of the things we need. The majority of the population have seen their wages and living standards stagnate for the last 15 years since the global crash of 2008, caused primarily by the banks but inequality has risen because the rich have got richer through no effort of their own, just the rigged system.
Literally no-one I know has ever used the word ‘woke’ which seems to be an invention of the Right Wing media, owned of course by billionaires who do very well out of that same system. They also supported Brexit which has delivered none of the promised benefits and, of course, Liz Truss who crashed the economy but made them happy by trying to cut the top rate of tax and keep Corporation Tax low, but with no obligation, so free money, corporate welfare.
The ‘liberal elite’ is a myth. There is an elite, an establishment, but it backs whichever party ensures the gravy keeps flowing their way. Apolitical and very, very greedy.
‘It was ever thus’ and jealousy will get you nowhere.
Spot on. “Woke” is a clever invention by the media (on behalf of the interests they work for) to distract and divide us.
Woke – if the hat fits wear it.
I assume you dislike the label because it describes you to a T
WOKE IS AMERICAN. It is not ‘invented’ by the media. Oh my days.
Woke – if the hat fits wear it.
I assume you dislike the label because it describes you to a T
WOKE IS AMERICAN. It is not ‘invented’ by the media. Oh my days.
I agree with you but sadly you have also completely destroyed Unherd’s raison d’etre. Without “wokeism” the pages would be very empty.
I’ve been surprised by the extent to which the site is such an echo chamber. There are people I agree with who can make a coherent argument with actual facts and, to be fair, some I disagree with who can do the same. But mainly it’s folk who make the mad homeless lady with the shopping cart sound like Shakespeare.
Is this an example of YOUR favourite expression? eg: “performative nastiness”.
Is this an example of YOUR favourite expression? eg: “performative nastiness”.
Then don’t come here. Maintain your purity of soul, Philip!
I’ve been surprised by the extent to which the site is such an echo chamber. There are people I agree with who can make a coherent argument with actual facts and, to be fair, some I disagree with who can do the same. But mainly it’s folk who make the mad homeless lady with the shopping cart sound like Shakespeare.
Then don’t come here. Maintain your purity of soul, Philip!
A simple google will tell you that ‘woke’ is not an invention of the right wing media. Rolls eyes so far back that almost falls over.
Accept, as you probably know perfectly well, there is the derivation of the word from African-American culture and the way it’s now used by the right wing media, and their fanboys and fangirls, as a generic insult for anyone whose views they don’t like.
Don’t you mean EXCEPT not accept?
Or is that American/English?
Rather like the word ‘fascist’ then in the left wing media.
(Did you mean ‘accept’ or ‘except’?)
You mean the name given to those who hold ‘Woke’ views?
PS I like your implied distaste of generic insults in the midst of your generic insults for the people whose views you don’t like. Very Woke. 😉
Don’t you mean EXCEPT not accept?
Or is that American/English?
Rather like the word ‘fascist’ then in the left wing media.
(Did you mean ‘accept’ or ‘except’?)
You mean the name given to those who hold ‘Woke’ views?
PS I like your implied distaste of generic insults in the midst of your generic insults for the people whose views you don’t like. Very Woke. 😉
Accept, as you probably know perfectly well, there is the derivation of the word from African-American culture and the way it’s now used by the right wing media, and their fanboys and fangirls, as a generic insult for anyone whose views they don’t like.
Please identify any right wing media. I would be interested to view/read it
Don’t be so lazy! Do your own research.
Just tell us – As you have already done the research.
Oh do share. Search as I might I cannot find anything remotely right wing.
You made the claim. You back it up if you can
Just tell us – As you have already done the research.
Oh do share. Search as I might I cannot find anything remotely right wing.
You made the claim. You back it up if you can
Don’t be so lazy! Do your own research.
I don’t like the terms Left and Right, as these terms have long lost any real meaning: They are just insults at worst, and a cover for self-interest at best.
But okay – The Right, as you call it, supported Brexit? News to me. Perhaps I am out of touch, but as I recall, the strongest support for Brexit always came from the old working class Left. Support for Remain was, and is, strongest amongst “the villa in Tuscany and cheap labour” brigade. In other words, The liberal Elite, the existence of which you believe to be a myth.
If you’d taken the trouble to read what I wrote then you’ll see that I said the right wing MEDIA supported Brexit, which is a fact. People I know who voted Leave voted for change, and against the status quo, and for the promised benefits. Unfortunately, the people they empowered to deliver Brexit, on the Right of the Tory Party had no interest at all in changing the status quo or delivering the promised benefits. They were just another branch of the same establishment, people like Boris Johnson, and were of course fully supported by ‘the Villa in Tuscany’ extremely well paid editors and columnists in that same right wing media, and backed by their billionaire owners.
Liberal elite is just another meaningless soundbite.
I did read your comment. As for meaningless soundbite, I offer you “right wing media”.
. You are very exercised by all this, John. Matthew Goodwin seems to have hit a nerve with his analysis of that mythical liberal elite that doesn’t run anything – Goodness me no!
Don’t worry, the economic and social consequences of the liberal elite nightmare fantasy that is Net Zero, will blow it all apart soon enough.
Funny, I thought this site was intended to be for an exchange of ideas, so, no, I’m not at all exercised by anything you’ve said. As for Matthew Goodwin, he makes a good living writing the same stuff over and over again. A great gig for him, which is why he does it but I’m don’t see him as some kind of sage.
Funny, also, that what I would class as right wing media support the Tory Party regardless of who is in charge – Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, now Sunak – regardless of the mess they make, regardless of any individual policies, because they deliver the rigged society their billionaire owners benefit from.
I assume you’re someone who denies the existence of climate change, and therefore the need to do anything about it, but correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, what would YOU do about it?
Also, don’t you see it as faintly absurd to criticise me for using ‘right wing media’ while constantly parroting ‘liberal elite’?
Brexit and climate change are not right wing issues, but I suspect that you are a paid up member of the wannabe liberal elite to which Cameron etc all belong
I’m afraid that you are wasting your time, JM is a classic Anglo-American Twitter Troll, and a rather boring one at that.
Brexit as delivered has been the one the Tory Party and their outriders wanted, and hasn’t delivered the outcomes people were asked to vote for. Climate change isn’t and shouldn’t be a right wing issue but climate deniers tend to be on what we consider to be the Right in political terms.
I despise David Cameron for the austerity policies that massively damaged so many communities.
I am a climate sceptic and I am right!
You are not alone, our numbers are Legion!
You are not alone, our numbers are Legion!
We were broke though weren’t we because of Blair? Got all carried away with the national debt? So we had to have austerity?
“ So we had to have austerity?”
YES! But we didn’t really have any. All ‘Smoke & Mirrors’, I’m afraid.
“ So we had to have austerity?”
YES! But we didn’t really have any. All ‘Smoke & Mirrors’, I’m afraid.
Cameron’s Government followed all of Brown’s major economic policies. QE, Low interest rates AND deficit spending. How is deficit spending ‘austerity’? Perhaps you need to ask the Greeks what Austerity is? The Troika of the EU/IMF/ECB provided that in spades. To the point that the IMF eventually apologised to Greece for being misled by the convicted fraudster now running the ECB. They apologised for “Immolating Greece on the Altar of the Euro.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/28/imf-admits-disastrous-love-affair-with-euro-apologises-for-the-i/
You are deluded. There was no austerity under Cameron. All he did was cut Britain’s biggest budget deficit since World War Two by between a quarter and a third. Total Government debt was £811bn around the time of the 2010 election, or 55.3 per cent of GDP. By December 2013 it had hit £1,111bn, or 70.7 per cent of GDP. Is this austerity?
As to climate change – Covid, Covid, Covid. I bet you went all in with all the lockdowns, didn’t wear a mask when the authorities said they did not work and obsessively wore on when they made it compulsory and that you are quadruple vaccinated.
I bet you still cannot bring yourself to concede it was all a complete waste of time.
Total Government debt was £811bn around the time of the 2010 election, or 55.3 per cent of GDP. By December 2013 it had hit £1,111bn, or 70.7 per cent of GDP. Is this austerity?
Is that true? Bloody hell we are shit at economics now.
You do of course realise that this government debt is also the asset that is the investment of most pension funds and life assurance policies? Most people on this medium do not!
My children mock me for continuing to put money into a pension
I can’t say I exactly understand at all the whole money system we rely on, the parts I do have sporadic knowledge of seem broken though.
Is this in the form of bonds and treasuries these pensions funds and such?
As far as I know qt has never been tried really before and it has all kinds of unintended and not always good consequences, that our qe and interest rates track Americas to an extent? As far as I know the system is debt built on debt built on dodgy banks and who knows how long we can keep the party going before reality catches up. I feel like it is likely to be soon. But like I say, sporadic knowledge, uncertain on all that.
My children mock me for continuing to put money into a pension
I can’t say I exactly understand at all the whole money system we rely on, the parts I do have sporadic knowledge of seem broken though.
Is this in the form of bonds and treasuries these pensions funds and such?
As far as I know qt has never been tried really before and it has all kinds of unintended and not always good consequences, that our qe and interest rates track Americas to an extent? As far as I know the system is debt built on debt built on dodgy banks and who knows how long we can keep the party going before reality catches up. I feel like it is likely to be soon. But like I say, sporadic knowledge, uncertain on all that.
I checked the figures. To be fair to Cameron the figures did improve by 2015, but austerity my a**e
Sorry I could have done that, thanks, we seem really bad at economics at the moment, or maybe we always have been, I’m not sure.
Sorry I could have done that, thanks, we seem really bad at economics at the moment, or maybe we always have been, I’m not sure.
Public Sector pensions need to be cut by 33% at the very minimum.
I see, have you based that on mathematical calculations Mr Stanhope? I don’t imagine they would take that very well. They would need battering with cold, hard economic facts to start with. Hardly anyone likes playing that game these days it seems.
I see, have you based that on mathematical calculations Mr Stanhope? I don’t imagine they would take that very well. They would need battering with cold, hard economic facts to start with. Hardly anyone likes playing that game these days it seems.
You do of course realise that this government debt is also the asset that is the investment of most pension funds and life assurance policies? Most people on this medium do not!
I checked the figures. To be fair to Cameron the figures did improve by 2015, but austerity my a**e
Public Sector pensions need to be cut by 33% at the very minimum.
Total Government debt was £811bn around the time of the 2010 election, or 55.3 per cent of GDP. By December 2013 it had hit £1,111bn, or 70.7 per cent of GDP. Is this austerity?
Is that true? Bloody hell we are shit at economics now.
I am a climate sceptic and I am right!
We were broke though weren’t we because of Blair? Got all carried away with the national debt? So we had to have austerity?
Cameron’s Government followed all of Brown’s major economic policies. QE, Low interest rates AND deficit spending. How is deficit spending ‘austerity’? Perhaps you need to ask the Greeks what Austerity is? The Troika of the EU/IMF/ECB provided that in spades. To the point that the IMF eventually apologised to Greece for being misled by the convicted fraudster now running the ECB. They apologised for “Immolating Greece on the Altar of the Euro.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/28/imf-admits-disastrous-love-affair-with-euro-apologises-for-the-i/
You are deluded. There was no austerity under Cameron. All he did was cut Britain’s biggest budget deficit since World War Two by between a quarter and a third. Total Government debt was £811bn around the time of the 2010 election, or 55.3 per cent of GDP. By December 2013 it had hit £1,111bn, or 70.7 per cent of GDP. Is this austerity?
As to climate change – Covid, Covid, Covid. I bet you went all in with all the lockdowns, didn’t wear a mask when the authorities said they did not work and obsessively wore on when they made it compulsory and that you are quadruple vaccinated.
I bet you still cannot bring yourself to concede it was all a complete waste of time.
I’m afraid that you are wasting your time, JM is a classic Anglo-American Twitter Troll, and a rather boring one at that.
Brexit as delivered has been the one the Tory Party and their outriders wanted, and hasn’t delivered the outcomes people were asked to vote for. Climate change isn’t and shouldn’t be a right wing issue but climate deniers tend to be on what we consider to be the Right in political terms.
I despise David Cameron for the austerity policies that massively damaged so many communities.
I meant that you are excercised by Matthew Goodwin’s research findings, not by my comments.
“I assume you’re someone who denies the existence of climate change, and therefore the need to do anything about it, but correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, what would YOU do about it?”
Then you assume wrong:
I do not presume to have sufficient understanding to judge the claims and counter claims. I merely observe that the pursuit of Net Zero, in the timescales envisaged, will result in social conflict and economic impoverishment. You won’t enjoy it.
I also observe that this policy, even if followed to the bitter end, will have no discernable effect upon global carbon emissions, because the major polluters will not follow suit (They don’t have a liberal elite).
I do not parrot the term “liberal elite”. I have used it because it is the term adopted by Professor Goodwin.
Anything else?
I don’t see Net Zero being delivered in the timescales either but all the evidence I’ve seen says that climate change is very real and there are huge social and economic problems if we do nothing, so what do we do?
As I said, Goodwin makes a good living from his stuff so because he uses ‘liberal elite’ doesn’t make it necessarily true. As I said in my original post there is an elite, an establishment, that does very well from the current status quo. I see them in many ways as apolitical but they tend to donate to the Conservatives as they deliver the outcomes that benefit them.
I am just telling you what will happen. Don’t ask me to find a solution.
“I don’t see Net Zero being delivered in the timescales”
So when do you propose to u-turn?
Goodwin doesn’t make a “good living” doing this stuff. He is a professor of Politics at Kent University doing his job. Pity more of his colleagues don’t do the same.
You are telling me what you think will happen, different thing. And I don’t propose to u-turn on anything, I am also just telling you what I think will happen.
I get it you’re a Goodwin fanboy, primarily I suspect because he says stuff you agree with. I’m not.
Surprise, surprise!
You said:
“I don’t see Net Zero being delivered in the timescales either”
Now you say:
“And I don’t propose to u-turn on anything, I am also just telling you what I think will happen.”
So how do you reconcile these two statements?
Surprise, surprise!
You said:
“I don’t see Net Zero being delivered in the timescales either”
Now you say:
“And I don’t propose to u-turn on anything, I am also just telling you what I think will happen.”
So how do you reconcile these two statements?
You are telling me what you think will happen, different thing. And I don’t propose to u-turn on anything, I am also just telling you what I think will happen.
I get it you’re a Goodwin fanboy, primarily I suspect because he says stuff you agree with. I’m not.
How much of that evidence comes from the IPCC? Have you read Lomborg? He has done the maths unlike Thunberg who doesn’t even appear to know that the polar bears appear to be thriving, contrary to the claims made of their impending extinction.
It seems Coral Reefs aren’t all dying off either
Then there was Lovelocks recanting of his Alarmist views when the warming stopped for years.
As for the windmills – the failure of them and the golden child of renewables, hydro, to produce sufficient power in 2021 led to the stellar rise in gas prices as Brazil & Europe ‘dashed for gas’ but there wasn’t enough of it. A certain Mr Putin decided that was his chance, and took it.
There was a reason Global Warming became Climate Change – and that was because the warming stopped sufficiently long to persuade Lovelock to recant his “Climate Alarmism”
I find Climate Science to be almost as dubious as Prof Doomsday’s pandemic model. Real science requires the sharing of data AND when you base ALL your evidence on computer models, the release of the source code. The Climate Apocalypse supporters appear to refuse that for ‘economic reasons’ – is that truly he appliance of science?
Here are two interesting links that I guess won’t change your mind either, but it means that when the inevitable happens and the Greens and Net Zero get smashed, I can say “I told you so.”
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/03/Allison-Wind-energy.pdf
https://doomberg.substack.com/p/between-a-rock-and-a-cold-place
One other link that also explains one reason for the UK’s failures economically. Sometimes reality has to be faced.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-deceit-crippling-energy-needs-101944301.html
One final note, nothing lasts forever, even the universe will end. I’d prefer it if the western world I currently live in lasts a bit longer, and abandoning Net Zero is the only way it will do so. Though we better scrap it soon!
I am just telling you what will happen. Don’t ask me to find a solution.
“I don’t see Net Zero being delivered in the timescales”
So when do you propose to u-turn?
Goodwin doesn’t make a “good living” doing this stuff. He is a professor of Politics at Kent University doing his job. Pity more of his colleagues don’t do the same.
How much of that evidence comes from the IPCC? Have you read Lomborg? He has done the maths unlike Thunberg who doesn’t even appear to know that the polar bears appear to be thriving, contrary to the claims made of their impending extinction.
It seems Coral Reefs aren’t all dying off either
Then there was Lovelocks recanting of his Alarmist views when the warming stopped for years.
As for the windmills – the failure of them and the golden child of renewables, hydro, to produce sufficient power in 2021 led to the stellar rise in gas prices as Brazil & Europe ‘dashed for gas’ but there wasn’t enough of it. A certain Mr Putin decided that was his chance, and took it.
There was a reason Global Warming became Climate Change – and that was because the warming stopped sufficiently long to persuade Lovelock to recant his “Climate Alarmism”
I find Climate Science to be almost as dubious as Prof Doomsday’s pandemic model. Real science requires the sharing of data AND when you base ALL your evidence on computer models, the release of the source code. The Climate Apocalypse supporters appear to refuse that for ‘economic reasons’ – is that truly he appliance of science?
Here are two interesting links that I guess won’t change your mind either, but it means that when the inevitable happens and the Greens and Net Zero get smashed, I can say “I told you so.”
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/03/Allison-Wind-energy.pdf
https://doomberg.substack.com/p/between-a-rock-and-a-cold-place
One other link that also explains one reason for the UK’s failures economically. Sometimes reality has to be faced.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-deceit-crippling-energy-needs-101944301.html
One final note, nothing lasts forever, even the universe will end. I’d prefer it if the western world I currently live in lasts a bit longer, and abandoning Net Zero is the only way it will do so. Though we better scrap it soon!
I don’t see Net Zero being delivered in the timescales either but all the evidence I’ve seen says that climate change is very real and there are huge social and economic problems if we do nothing, so what do we do?
As I said, Goodwin makes a good living from his stuff so because he uses ‘liberal elite’ doesn’t make it necessarily true. As I said in my original post there is an elite, an establishment, that does very well from the current status quo. I see them in many ways as apolitical but they tend to donate to the Conservatives as they deliver the outcomes that benefit them.
Brexit and climate change are not right wing issues, but I suspect that you are a paid up member of the wannabe liberal elite to which Cameron etc all belong
I meant that you are excercised by Matthew Goodwin’s research findings, not by my comments.
“I assume you’re someone who denies the existence of climate change, and therefore the need to do anything about it, but correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, what would YOU do about it?”
Then you assume wrong:
I do not presume to have sufficient understanding to judge the claims and counter claims. I merely observe that the pursuit of Net Zero, in the timescales envisaged, will result in social conflict and economic impoverishment. You won’t enjoy it.
I also observe that this policy, even if followed to the bitter end, will have no discernable effect upon global carbon emissions, because the major polluters will not follow suit (They don’t have a liberal elite).
I do not parrot the term “liberal elite”. I have used it because it is the term adopted by Professor Goodwin.
Anything else?
Funny, I thought this site was intended to be for an exchange of ideas, so, no, I’m not at all exercised by anything you’ve said. As for Matthew Goodwin, he makes a good living writing the same stuff over and over again. A great gig for him, which is why he does it but I’m don’t see him as some kind of sage.
Funny, also, that what I would class as right wing media support the Tory Party regardless of who is in charge – Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, now Sunak – regardless of the mess they make, regardless of any individual policies, because they deliver the rigged society their billionaire owners benefit from.
I assume you’re someone who denies the existence of climate change, and therefore the need to do anything about it, but correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, what would YOU do about it?
Also, don’t you see it as faintly absurd to criticise me for using ‘right wing media’ while constantly parroting ‘liberal elite’?
I did read your comment. As for meaningless soundbite, I offer you “right wing media”.
. You are very exercised by all this, John. Matthew Goodwin seems to have hit a nerve with his analysis of that mythical liberal elite that doesn’t run anything – Goodness me no!
Don’t worry, the economic and social consequences of the liberal elite nightmare fantasy that is Net Zero, will blow it all apart soon enough.
If you’d taken the trouble to read what I wrote then you’ll see that I said the right wing MEDIA supported Brexit, which is a fact. People I know who voted Leave voted for change, and against the status quo, and for the promised benefits. Unfortunately, the people they empowered to deliver Brexit, on the Right of the Tory Party had no interest at all in changing the status quo or delivering the promised benefits. They were just another branch of the same establishment, people like Boris Johnson, and were of course fully supported by ‘the Villa in Tuscany’ extremely well paid editors and columnists in that same right wing media, and backed by their billionaire owners.
Liberal elite is just another meaningless soundbite.
As a former teacher, I could laugh at your claims of ‘underfunded’ education. During a period between re-training from being a STEM teacher and a new job in commerce and industry, I went supply teaching. I got to work in a number of so called ‘sink comps’ and the myth of lack of money was a joke. More than one such comp had state of the art gymnasia, (yes more than one) floodlit all weather artificial grass football pitches and IT tech that put the companies I worked for to shame. That in the early 1980’s.
The problem is that politicians used ROSLA and extended Education to keep unemployment numbers down. There is, of course the minor problem that raising the leaving age only works for a year or so, unless you keep doing it, and you can maybe get a decade or more out of it. Odd how many City Centres are basically Uni Campuses with ‘luxury’ residential high rise blocks. The consequences when it all fails won’t be pretty. It isn’t just a UK issue either. The US student debt is considered to be as dangerous as the 2008 sub-prime issue. A better approach would be to lower the school leaving age, provided the pupil could pass a basic matriculation exam in the so called 3 R’s. Do that and a lot of children would be relieved to escape the education system. Let them work their way up through organisations. Two of the most successful ex-pupils I know escaped the system at 16, and after being the most disruptive pupils in school rapidly rose up the ranks in industry and commerce. Ironically they now run some businesses having been working for over a decade, just when their University educated peers are finding it increasingly hard to find a job. Lockdowns not having helped.
Your complaints re our Utilities may be accurate, BUT the question is – who is responsible? That was the EU Competition rules, and the UK’s Europhile Political and Bureaucratic establishments who followed the spirit of the EU unlike France, who didn’t. EDF was never fully privatised because France, like Germany chose what rules to obey and how to obey them. The UK always did it the EU way – which is why the EU and the Remain Establishment harbour such resentment toward Brexiteers even now. We must be punished for IF the UK could Brexit, despite a Europhile establishment, who couldn’t?
2008 was the culmination of political interference with mortgage loans and risk assessment, because assessing the poor meant not giving them loans, BUT the preponderance of minorities in poverty led to the idea this was discrimination and so began the rise of the sub-prime mortgage. Clinton IIRC was the prime mover The banks putting them into Mortgage Backed Securities wasn’t good , but then there were so many sub-prime loans. There still are, again thanks to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as another US Government backed provider whose name escapes me at present. These sub-prime mortgages are now overwhelmingly held by the Fed. Nothing it seems, has been learnt.
Since 2008 most of the west has seen their wages & living standards stagnate, the US is even more subject to that than we are. As for Truss, she didn’t crash the economy, she lifted the lid on it all. The BoE is curiously excused of most things that it has caused, particularly inflation. So far it has blamed Businesses raising prices, workers demanding wage rises, early retirement and the most recent? ‘Bad luck’. It never seems to occur to Bailey that his only job was to keep inflation around 2% and printing money as though it was going out of fashion may have something to do with this failure.
The failure ain’t bad luck, but sheer incompetence. You can tell when the BoE fears a disaster because the head rolls out the stock phrase “Moral Hazard” – well talking of morals, here are a few ‘views’ on who stuffed the UK economy under Truss.
https://mises.org/wire/bank-england-made-liz-truss-scapegoat
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/05/did-the-bank-of-england-sabotage-liz-trusss-premiership/
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2023/how-the-bank-broke-the-government/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets-didnt-oust-truss-the-bank-of-england-did/2022/10/26/dd92c4d2-54eb-11ed-ac8b-08bbfab1c5a5_story.html
and last but not least, one suggesting that Bailey doesn’t work for a salary, but his pension.
https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/10/pay-bank-of-england
The above also touches on one thing that hovers over the West and is slowly eroding the very fabric of the modern western industrialised society. That is economic collapse, which was a potential problem even without Net Zero. However, Net Zero is a guarantor of that collapse.
The lethal mix of 2008 can kicking with QE/Low interest rates, deficit spending now meeting lockdown inflation and most of all Net Zero insanity is going to force a lot of the Wokeratii to face a very uncomfortable reality. It strikes me that Wokeness is a symptom of being at the very top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
IF the predictions that I read regarding the catastrophic collapse of Western economies is correct (and it is looking as though the predictions are correct) then a cascade down the hierarchy to the two basic needs will kill Woke ideals – though IF Net Zero insanity progresses far enough, it may also result in a violent end too for those Woke who have pursued such ideals and forced much of it on a complacent even apathetic Society.
Perhaps the small clue as to what the future holds for the Woke can be found in the reaction of the Canning Town Tube commuters to Extinction Rebellion protestors? I hope not, but I believe Net Zero consequences of the failure of wind and hydro in 2021 and the dash for gas to replace them, with the stellar rises in gas prices persuaded Putin to invade Ukraine. That changed the world. Perhaps The Woke are already history, they just don’t know it yet.
keep taking the medication, listen to your charge nurse
‘It was ever thus’ and jealousy will get you nowhere.
Spot on. “Woke” is a clever invention by the media (on behalf of the interests they work for) to distract and divide us.
I agree with you but sadly you have also completely destroyed Unherd’s raison d’etre. Without “wokeism” the pages would be very empty.
A simple google will tell you that ‘woke’ is not an invention of the right wing media. Rolls eyes so far back that almost falls over.
Please identify any right wing media. I would be interested to view/read it
I don’t like the terms Left and Right, as these terms have long lost any real meaning: They are just insults at worst, and a cover for self-interest at best.
But okay – The Right, as you call it, supported Brexit? News to me. Perhaps I am out of touch, but as I recall, the strongest support for Brexit always came from the old working class Left. Support for Remain was, and is, strongest amongst “the villa in Tuscany and cheap labour” brigade. In other words, The liberal Elite, the existence of which you believe to be a myth.
As a former teacher, I could laugh at your claims of ‘underfunded’ education. During a period between re-training from being a STEM teacher and a new job in commerce and industry, I went supply teaching. I got to work in a number of so called ‘sink comps’ and the myth of lack of money was a joke. More than one such comp had state of the art gymnasia, (yes more than one) floodlit all weather artificial grass football pitches and IT tech that put the companies I worked for to shame. That in the early 1980’s.
The problem is that politicians used ROSLA and extended Education to keep unemployment numbers down. There is, of course the minor problem that raising the leaving age only works for a year or so, unless you keep doing it, and you can maybe get a decade or more out of it. Odd how many City Centres are basically Uni Campuses with ‘luxury’ residential high rise blocks. The consequences when it all fails won’t be pretty. It isn’t just a UK issue either. The US student debt is considered to be as dangerous as the 2008 sub-prime issue. A better approach would be to lower the school leaving age, provided the pupil could pass a basic matriculation exam in the so called 3 R’s. Do that and a lot of children would be relieved to escape the education system. Let them work their way up through organisations. Two of the most successful ex-pupils I know escaped the system at 16, and after being the most disruptive pupils in school rapidly rose up the ranks in industry and commerce. Ironically they now run some businesses having been working for over a decade, just when their University educated peers are finding it increasingly hard to find a job. Lockdowns not having helped.
Your complaints re our Utilities may be accurate, BUT the question is – who is responsible? That was the EU Competition rules, and the UK’s Europhile Political and Bureaucratic establishments who followed the spirit of the EU unlike France, who didn’t. EDF was never fully privatised because France, like Germany chose what rules to obey and how to obey them. The UK always did it the EU way – which is why the EU and the Remain Establishment harbour such resentment toward Brexiteers even now. We must be punished for IF the UK could Brexit, despite a Europhile establishment, who couldn’t?
2008 was the culmination of political interference with mortgage loans and risk assessment, because assessing the poor meant not giving them loans, BUT the preponderance of minorities in poverty led to the idea this was discrimination and so began the rise of the sub-prime mortgage. Clinton IIRC was the prime mover The banks putting them into Mortgage Backed Securities wasn’t good , but then there were so many sub-prime loans. There still are, again thanks to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as another US Government backed provider whose name escapes me at present. These sub-prime mortgages are now overwhelmingly held by the Fed. Nothing it seems, has been learnt.
Since 2008 most of the west has seen their wages & living standards stagnate, the US is even more subject to that than we are. As for Truss, she didn’t crash the economy, she lifted the lid on it all. The BoE is curiously excused of most things that it has caused, particularly inflation. So far it has blamed Businesses raising prices, workers demanding wage rises, early retirement and the most recent? ‘Bad luck’. It never seems to occur to Bailey that his only job was to keep inflation around 2% and printing money as though it was going out of fashion may have something to do with this failure.
The failure ain’t bad luck, but sheer incompetence. You can tell when the BoE fears a disaster because the head rolls out the stock phrase “Moral Hazard” – well talking of morals, here are a few ‘views’ on who stuffed the UK economy under Truss.
https://mises.org/wire/bank-england-made-liz-truss-scapegoat
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/05/did-the-bank-of-england-sabotage-liz-trusss-premiership/
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2023/how-the-bank-broke-the-government/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets-didnt-oust-truss-the-bank-of-england-did/2022/10/26/dd92c4d2-54eb-11ed-ac8b-08bbfab1c5a5_story.html
and last but not least, one suggesting that Bailey doesn’t work for a salary, but his pension.
https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/10/pay-bank-of-england
The above also touches on one thing that hovers over the West and is slowly eroding the very fabric of the modern western industrialised society. That is economic collapse, which was a potential problem even without Net Zero. However, Net Zero is a guarantor of that collapse.
The lethal mix of 2008 can kicking with QE/Low interest rates, deficit spending now meeting lockdown inflation and most of all Net Zero insanity is going to force a lot of the Wokeratii to face a very uncomfortable reality. It strikes me that Wokeness is a symptom of being at the very top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
IF the predictions that I read regarding the catastrophic collapse of Western economies is correct (and it is looking as though the predictions are correct) then a cascade down the hierarchy to the two basic needs will kill Woke ideals – though IF Net Zero insanity progresses far enough, it may also result in a violent end too for those Woke who have pursued such ideals and forced much of it on a complacent even apathetic Society.
Perhaps the small clue as to what the future holds for the Woke can be found in the reaction of the Canning Town Tube commuters to Extinction Rebellion protestors? I hope not, but I believe Net Zero consequences of the failure of wind and hydro in 2021 and the dash for gas to replace them, with the stellar rises in gas prices persuaded Putin to invade Ukraine. That changed the world. Perhaps The Woke are already history, they just don’t know it yet.
keep taking the medication, listen to your charge nurse
In the UK we have a tax system that prioritises capital over work, and is remarkably easy to game if you’re rich enough; the schools where most of our kids go are underfunded and can’t get sufficient teachers but we give tax breaks to private schools where a third of the pupils come from overseas; utilities essential to our safety and security are largely owned by foreign investors so with our water tens of billions of dividends flow out of the country while we can’t swim on our beaches or rivers because of discharged sewage and our train service in the North of England is a joke but we pay dividends to the Italian Railway, part owners of Avanti.
We have the largest regional inequality in Europe and a massive trade deficit because we don’t make or produce enough of the things we need. The majority of the population have seen their wages and living standards stagnate for the last 15 years since the global crash of 2008, caused primarily by the banks but inequality has risen because the rich have got richer through no effort of their own, just the rigged system.
Literally no-one I know has ever used the word ‘woke’ which seems to be an invention of the Right Wing media, owned of course by billionaires who do very well out of that same system. They also supported Brexit which has delivered none of the promised benefits and, of course, Liz Truss who crashed the economy but made them happy by trying to cut the top rate of tax and keep Corporation Tax low, but with no obligation, so free money, corporate welfare.
The ‘liberal elite’ is a myth. There is an elite, an establishment, but it backs whichever party ensures the gravy keeps flowing their way. Apolitical and very, very greedy.