February 6, 2025 - 10:00am
I suppose there never was a golden age when actors avoided politics entirely. John Wayne offered enthusiastic support to anti-communist campaigns in post-war Hollywood. Marlon Brando sent a fake Native American to the 1973 Oscars to collect his Best Actor award.
But it does seem like celebrity interventions in politics have become both more frequent and more absurd over the last few years. The best recent example of this was Idris Elba’s suggestion on Radio 4’s Today programme that kitchen knives should be sold without a pointed end to avoid them being used to stab people. This came after Elba’s new BBC documentary. And only a week later, this bizarre idea appears to have been taken up by the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.
The pipeline from “person on TV with a bee in their bonnet” to actual policy proposal has already seen some use in this Parliament. In October Keir Starmer justified his support for a vote on assisted suicide by noting that he’d promised such a vote to Esther Rantzen before the general election.
You can see why politicians are always keen to jump on a passing celebrity bandwagon, or make use of celebrities to popularise their own proposals. For good or ill, we are a celebrity culture. People look to performers of various kinds, and other prominent people, for moral and political leadership. If the Duchess of Cambridge wears a particular dress, it sells out in a day or two. If YouTube influencers talk about some issue, it genuinely does help to push that issue into the mainstream. Of course politicians — who tend to have little charisma and are regarded as generally unreliable — will want to take advantage of the ready-made trust that people place in entertainers to generate enthusiasm for their schemes.
It’s also true that the simplistic solutions offered by celebrities who imagine themselves to have some brilliant insight into public affairs tend to be those which tug on the heartstrings. Modern politicians are not, on the whole, comfortable with making principled philosophical arguments about matters of importance. We saw this in spades in the recent House of Commons debate over assisted suicide. The speeches were heavily reliant on personal anecdotes and appeals to difficult individual circumstances, rather than considerations of higher principles or the unforeseen and unintended consequences of such a seismic change.
Sadly, our political leaders fight shy of the more sober-minded and reflective approach that was common not so very long ago — if you doubt this, read pre-1997 Hansard, or watch political interviews from the 1970s — and therefore rely more heavily on moral credibility accumulated by singers and soap stars.
It’s hard to know what might be done to fix this situation. The incentives for celebrities to use their status to push simplistic fashionable causes are now enormous. The old joke was that politics is showbiz for ugly people. Let’s hope that showbiz doesn’t entirely turn into politics for beautiful people.
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.
SubscribePossibly Idris Elba didn’t do metalwork at school and is unfamiliar with what can be achieved with a metal file.
However many young people did…and are.
Or a Stanley knife
Or some sandpaper & stick, or a toothbrush snapped in half, or a broken piece of glass.
Does your island need a warm blanket and some pats on the back to deal with the dangers of reality? I’m sure tea could be provided.
Elba’s intervention was just lazy. It’s easier to blame an inanimate object than to point the finger at state education, absent fathers, drug culture and benefit-dependency
I agree that it’s better to deal with the underlying causes, but I don’t think it’s a “lazy” suggestion. It is actually pragmatic within the context of society as it is currently envisaged by our ‘progressive’ elites. I’m also not sure I can see the harm in it, so long as it does not interfere with dealing with the underlying causes.
I’m not sure why people are disliking my post. Please explain.
What about all the pointy knives that are in the drawers of all the kitchens in all the houses?
Elba seems to have proposed that kitchen knives should be sold without a pointed end
I agree with you. Those downvoting are (wilfully?) misunderstanding your point, possibly since they think you’re supporting “the government taking notice of Idris Elba”.
I really do wonder about partiality and comprehension skills in evidence at times.
Clearly, from the responses!
Maybe his comment was poorly worded then
Because it just gives in to a ridiculous idea…
I heard some of the interview on ‘The Today Programme’. Idris never once mentioned the option of ‘Stop and search’. You can’t stab someone without a knife. As usual, he pussyfooted around the subject and offered no credible ideas to solve the problem.
Can you explain why state education should shoulder part of the blame please? (I agree with the role of the other factors, by the way)
It’s not owning a knife, it’s not carrying a knife, it’s using a knife, that causes harm.
We’re already banned from carrying kitchen knives in public without good reason.
The police have the power to search suspicious persons and remove dangerous items from public spaces , the only weak link in the chain is they’re fettered by complaints from those who think being searched for illegal items causes more hurt feelings than being disemboweled by them.
It’s never been legal to walk around town with a machete in living memory without an extremely good excuse, but kids feel emboldened to carry them because they know they’re unlikely to get searched due to the interference of shortsighted busybodies and the influence of unelected “community leaders”
‘It’s not owning a knife, it’s not carrying a knife, it’s using a knife, that causes harm.’
This reminds me of the argument that it isn’t dangerous dogs that are the problem but careless dog owners. It always seems to me that the problem is a combination of two things: careless dog owner + dangerous dog. The careless owner of a Labrador Retriever is a smaller problem that the careless owner of an Amarican Bully XL.
I feel the same way about knives. Yes, it is the people who use knives that are the problem but if there were no sharp-ended knives the problem might be reduced. It’s harder to slice someone to death than to stab them and it’s harder to conceal a machete than a dagger.
Your idea about laws against carrying knives already existing is the same argument against burglary and theft and murder and every other crime. Yes, there are already laws against them but miraculously they still happen! This is partly because the police are bloody useless, partly because soft progressive liberal ideas have come to dominate western societies, and partly because it is impossible to completely eradicate crime from society.
That’s why Stop & Search should be reintroduced and doubled up on regardless of what the likes of Sir Sadiq think. Stop them all, black, brown, white, whatever.
The dangerous dogs argument isn’t remotely comparable. THere is no use or benefit to owning a Bully XL – it’s pure indulgence.
Knives by contrast the most basic & fundamentla of all human tools. It’s imprortant for many basic life skills, not least cooking. No one has ever been improved, become more skilled or independent with a dangerous job. So many of the basic ways we become more skilled & independent involve knives – be it cookery, DIY, outdoor activites, etc.
It’s not at all like the dengarous dogs argument.
There is no practical everyday use for a dangerous dog. Bully XLs in particular were not bred for any use or purpose, just to be as big and agressive as possible. You gain know useful skill or ability by having one.
Knives on the other hand are the most basic, versatile, fundamental tool humans have had since the Iron Age. Are you really saying that British people of the 21st century are less able to be trusted wit a tool literally every human since the Iron Age used regularly if not every day?
Cooking, outdoor survival skills, DIY, there any nuber of skills that make people more independent, healthier and confident that require pointed knives. These are things people *should* be able to do, and up till now it was expected they would be able to do.
Ruining all of that to avoid implementing stop and search is madness.
If only there were only no sharp-ended knives…
The billions of people who actually had to deal with reality and survival up until 100 years ago are laughing so hard they might pop out of their graves…
Your opening sentence sounds awfully like the NRA in America.
and the NRA is right on that.
Yes, and there is a lesson there if you care to think about it.
The main issue is that Fathers are not bringing up sons properly. They do not accept the responsibility of bringing up sons; they use to teach them how to box. In the absence of Fathers, there are no male relatives and/or clubs for boxing, judo/martial arts and rugby where boys can let off steam and learn to be tough. If one looks at areas which were deprived during the Depression, outside of the docks, boys who went to work at fourteen years of age, played rugby in winter, cricket in summer and boxed throughout the year were confident they could give a good account of themselves in a fight without using knives.
Historically boys were given boxing gloves for their fifth or sixth birthday. Look at photographs of evacuees; most boys from East End are carrying their boxing gloves.
Squadron Sergeant Reg Seekings DCM, MM of SAS and Sergeant and Douglas Pomford MM and Bar of the SBS grew up in the Depression, experienced poverty, worked and box. They did not become knife carrying criminals.
Sergeant Stan Scott of The Commandos gives a lecture on You Tube on how to use a Fairbarn and Sykes fighting knife. Those issued with
FS Knives have existed from 1940 and those trained to use them have been able to live without using them for criminal activity.
The True WWII Story of SAS Original Reg Seekings – Aspects
of History
SAS – Pomford, Douglas | Special Forces Roll Of Honour
Fairbairn-Sykes Fighting Knife – YouTube
Sergeant Stan Scott ran army cadets in NE London and did much good keeping boys on the starigth amd narrow.
Edith Summerskill MP of Labour had boxing banned from state school ls in 1965 and the introduction of comprehensives school resulted in an attitude against competitive sports, especially rugby. If Blair and Starmer had wanted working class roots they would have played rugby league. As League players say ” Football if for girls, union for women and league for men. ”
Orwell said the middle class left wingers despise physical courage, British culture and patriotism. He is correct.
At the core of middle class left wingers is self-hatred, they hate themselves because they are unable to physically defend themselves and they want everyone else to be as craven so they will not be shown up and ridiculed. If everyone is craven they cannot be ridiculed. Training in boxing, rugby and martial trains people to control fear and anger.
The Left have mocked self control since the late 1960s ” If it feels good do it. There should be no inhibitions.” Well what happens when stabbing someone feels good?
Let’s play out the concept: knives in the U.K. will no longer have points so they can’t be used for stabbing, but then violent people realize that knives can also be used for slicing, and to fix that, the U.K. will now only sell knife handles. Or maybe violent people will just sharpen knives with dull points so they are sharp again, and then the U.K. will ban knife sharpeners.
The logical conclusion is to ban all private commerce and that the state should distribute goods only to people who have the correct certificates to show that they are not potential murderers
I think the next logical step is to prevent bludgeonings by sharpening all blunt instruments like hammers.
Eventually banning bananas and loganberries after the elimination of pointy sticks.
No, no. Everyone has this backwards. All citizens simply need state-issued chain mail.
It’s both the most progressive answer, but also the most traditional answer that embraces national heritage. You might not know but chainmail can be very discreet.
Protection against knife attacks is the very responsibility of the state – via forged metal armor of course. (Again, not intrusive scale armor, that would be ridiculous, but mail that would simply be worn under clothes comprised of fine links of chain.) State-issued chainmail is a human right.
I recall many years ago a Corrie actress doing an ITV special on Domestic Violence as her character was subject to that in the show.
My friend pointed out that maybe next week the show (maybe Trevor McDonut’s Big Story) could do one where Mike Baldwin talks about the Rag Trade challenges in the North West.
“My idols have feet of clay.” Use this as a guiding principle to avoid following.
“Why is the Home Secretary taking advice from Idris Elba?”
It’s obvious. Doaah!
Up next, blaming the fork for obesity. This knife thing is making the American left’s gun freakout look almost sane, except for the parallel in blaming inanimate objects while excusing bad personal behavior. But we can’t have people being looked at as the problem, especially people of certain groups.
May I suggest also banning fire? Dangerous stuff
blaming the fork for obesity
Do Machettes have points?
.
He’s a celebrity like Rantzen. Their concerns must be addressed while the rest of us must live with the ‘tough choices’ our leaders must make for our own good regardless.
Who is Idris Elba? Great name.