The overlooked election factor: Stockholm syndrome
After a year of pandemic, have voters fallen in love with their captors?
The Conservatives’ stunning success in local elections across England is widely, and no doubt correctly, being put down to the generational class rotation that Brexit made possible — voting Tory is no longer considered a betrayal in working class areas. Labour is increasingly the party of graduates, the young and diverse metropolitan centres.
But what then should we make of the results in Wales? Labour First Minister Mark Drakeford has been returned with an extraordinary increase in his majority — polling nearly 50% of the total vote in Cardiff West — and Labour took back Rhondda from former Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood. In Scotland, the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon has been returned with a stunning 60% of the vote in her Glasgow Southside seat.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
One factor that hasn’t been much discussed is that these three characters — Sturgeon, Drakeford and Johnson — have for the past year of pandemic been on the television screens almost every evening precisely calibrating the level of freedom people should expect to enjoy. Sometimes our leaders have been generous, allowing us to have a coffee on a park bench with a friend; at other times, they have been pointlessly capricious, such as when Mark Drakeford insisted that non essential items like birthday cards and books were cordoned off in Welsh supermarkets so that people did not shop unnecessarily.
To a degree never before seen in British history, these leaders have had power to control every aspect of our lives — should it surprise us if psychologically they have assumed something of the space of our benevolent captors?
Stockholm syndrome is the phenomenon in which hostages fall in love with their captors. First named after hostages taken in a 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm defended their captors after release and refused to testify against them. The following year American heiress Patty Hearst was kidnapped by a guerrilla group and subsequently denounced her family and joined them with a new name, Tania.
In general psychology, Stockholm syndrome is understood as “trauma bonding” or “an unconscious emotional response to the terror of being captive when protection is entirely in the hands of the captor or abuser.” Sounds a little bit relevant to the past year.
A less provocative way to point at the same effect would be to talk about the tendency in politics for voters to rally around the government during a time of crisis. With elections taking place at the moment of maximum generosity — the slow and controlled restoration of certain freedoms — and success of the vaccine rollout, voters look additionally kindly on their rulers.
But perhaps there’s a bit of the longstanding hostage in all of us — accustomed to the outsized power of our masters and grown fond of the face of the man or woman who at 5pm each day tells us whether we will be safe and whether we can once again start holding hands.
The people have been fed a narrative that there’s a threat and that certain actions will protect them from this alleged threat. Thanks to a combination of gullibility, stupidity, herd instinct and an inability to examine narratives the people have fallen for this in their millions.
I find this deeply depressing.
I think you are being very disrespectful to the British people – just like the Remainers who dismissed Brexit voters as thick, uneducated, xenophobic and racist.
I can’t dictate how you read my words – I thought it was straightforward English unless I have vastly misunderstood the meaning of disrespectful. As a counter-argument to your unfounded statement I would argue (and just for the record I an not PRO lockdowns) that you are making huge assumptions about people. It appears people were in favour of lockdowns as a means of containing the virus, and to be fair most of us are not scientists or economists – so to formulate an expert opinion would be difficult, especially as we have nothing in our lifetimes to compare it to. I’m sure there were people who did read different viewpoints, as there were people who just listened to the narrative, as there were people who refused to engage in the narrative. I made the point that because you don’t agree with the majority you are falling into the Remainers trap of dismissing the population as uninformed, lazy and stupid.Is that clear enough for you?
The lockdowns were not about countering the virus, maybe the six weeks to flatten the sombrero, but the rest was a pure power insanity.This is totally about the NWO, the Great Reset, the return of a feudal system. By impoverishing the land, and making all dependent on Gov handouts you have sold your selves into bondage – wait to see the economic ‘Correction’ coming after the gov spent the nations into bankruptcy, you sheep just gave up another portion of your rights for ever.
Oh I agree that there has been much mishandling of the crises but that wasn’t really my point. I’m not sure I buy into NWO etc but I accept that it could be possible. Not all countries locked down and anyway now it’s all academic we are where we are – it’s how we get out of it is important now. Arguing about lockdowns won’t cut the mustard on the road to recovery. And yes I do think the commentators remarks were harsh and did little to explain to or engage with those who had a different opinion or no opinion even.
Accepting lockdowns and abiding by them because you were legally forced to are entirely separate things. I don’t know many who were in favor of lockdowns and those that were not were right because we now know that the virus spreads much more efficiently indoors.
I’m not having a discussion about lockdowns. It’s not really the point. I’m not convinced by them but can understand why people are. In time hopefully a thorough analysis will put the record straight. It was more the tone of the commentator denouncing the population as idiots. I think that tone is neither respectful or conducive to intelligent discussion.
This point of yours was what I was addressing…
“It appears people were in favour of lockdowns as a means of containing the virus”
Well in Britain it seems they were even if they disliked them. Obviously I can’t comment on other countries.
Unless you’ve talked with everyone in Britain you wouldn’t have any way of knowing. Unless you can prove that everyone who abided by forced lockdowns, were in favor of them. And I doubt that you can. Acquiescence, particularly of forced behavior, and being in favor of are not synonyms.
This was the your comment. “.It appears people were in favour of lockdowns as a means of containing the virus.”
and this was my response to that comment “Accepting lockdowns and abiding by them because you were legally forced to are entirely separate things. I don’t know many who were in favor of lockdowns and those that were not were right because we now know that the virus spreads much more efficiently indoors.”
OK. Just going on polls and the majority of people I know. They’re not loving them. In fact my 86 Yr old mother has ignored it all – and just for the record I’ve not admonished her!! You really need to calm down. Lockdown really is a trigger point for you isn’t it?
Okay well polls have their place. Do you have one you can cite that shows that everyone who abided by lockdown parameters agreed with them? If not, then perhaps your original comment should be recognized as overly broad. Which was what my response to it indicated.
By that reckoning – indoor spread – surely pubs, restaurants, cinemas, nightclubs etc are indoors? I do believe these places could have been made safer. But saying it spreads indoors is surely shooting yourself in the foot as regards lockdowns. In time we’ll be able to analyse spread. But I agree people shouldn’t be locked up, having said that apart from the 1st lockdown (where I live) I have seen more people out and about in parks open spaces etc than before Covid hit.
None of those establishments were open during lockdowns. With everyone locked down at home, where do you think the virus was spreading? I’m not saying it spreads better indoors, we KNOW that it does. And where were people locked down? Indoors. With zero ability to distance like you’d have in a cinema or restaurant.
You can’t avoid the other people you live with at home. You can at a cinema. Sit 6 seats away. You can at a restaurant. Especially at an outdoors one. But those were still locked down.
Don’t overlook the fact that the US states and locales with the longest most stringent lockdowns also had the worst covid experience.
Ah you’re American. I don’t want to compare countries. We can’t. I’m not disputing it can travel indoors. I think to an extent we are talking at cross purposes and you didn’t pick up on my irony. But until an analysis is done and what was right for each country there is little room for debate. Anyway my original comment was not about lockdown but you fail to grasp that point.
Covid doesn’t care what your nationality is. I haven’t compared countries. Nor am I interested in doing so when the US perfectly illustrates my point. There’s always room for debate. You have commented repeatedly about lockdown. You just don’t like the response to one of them.
No you are again missing my point. I understand the first lockdown in the UK. The subsequent ones I have been somewhat sceptical about although be it not entirely anti them. Your experience in the states will be very different from ours. Again my argument was not about lockdowns per se.
I didn’t say you didn’t understand any lockdown. I also didn’t say anything about different countries. Covid doesn’t care what country you’re in. You did in fact make several comments about lockdown. And I responded to one. You are not required to like the response.
I’m sorry but it’s you who can’t let go of lockdown. My original response was not about lockdown per se. I’m ambivalent about them. But I suspect you are not even listening anyway.
“ It appears people were in favour of lockdowns as a means of containing the virus.” was not about lockdowns?
I don’t care whether you’re ambivalent about lockdowns, it isn’t about you. I responded to a comment you made about lockdowns. Not to a comment you made about yourself. I suspect you are not reading carefully.
Oh dear can you get over yourself and get a grip. It was you who brought the lockdown argument in even though that was not what my post was about. You’re starting to sound hysterical. Have some self-respect. Have a cup of tea. We Brits swear by it.
Well, no, it was your post that I responded to. Shall we review it again? Here is your post...”It appears people were in favour of lockdowns as a means of containing the virus.”
So you brought up lockdowns, not me.
Oh my dear, please stop fretting over something you can’t change now. Please focus on the future.
What is it you believe I’m trying to change?
Your statement to which I originally responded was simply over-broad. There’s no evidence that, as you said, “ It appears people were in favour of lockdowns as a means of containing the virus.”
if you have such evidence, by all means provide it. As I mentioned, abiding by lockdowns does not always indicate being in favor of them.
In Britain. I presume you understand that. Polls indicated people at least went along with them. I admit I will have to look up the references and I will do if it will help you sleep at night. But also from the people I speak to in my area. Please dear lady stop fretting. The lockdowns have happened we have to move on. By the way do you have any suggestions for that?
No poll shows that everyone was in favor, regardless of whether they abided by restrictions. But if you would care to keep searching for one that showed total agreement, that is up to you of course.
Your statement was simply overly broad. Some people were in favor, yes. But not nearly everyone. Abiding by restrictions does not indicate that one agrees with them. As I said in my response to your post.
Where I live, we have moved on. If you have not where you live, wouldn’t it be up to you, or whomever is running things, as to how and when you move on?
Annette, as I’ve suggested to you before, you really need to see a therapist about your intellectual inferiority complex.
Quite evidently, Claire’s comment about the British public favoring lockdowns was a reference to the public generally, ie the majority. A young child of average intelligence would know Claire was not suggesting each and every one of the 60+million individuals in the U.K. have precisely the same view on a particular issue, including “lockdowns”.
In any event, here’s a YouGov poll showing 85% support for the Jan 2021 U.K. lockdown: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/05/brits-support-national-lockdown-jan-2021
Whether there were better alternative policies for countries with relatively large populations and high population densities like the U.K. will be the subject of perennial debate I’m sure.
Thank you for the reference I was too exhausted to look for it.
You two have Stockholm Syndrome bad, get out, get some air.
Lockdowns happened because the people are stupid and cowards and expect gov to care for them like they are pets, not sovereign citizens.
I have been out all through every lockdown and my 86 year old mother the same – apart from the first one. I’m not advocating lockdowns at all if you bother to read my posts. My explanation of why people voted like they did may in part be because they were jaded after the Covid situation so decided on the status quo – but even that over simplifies it.
I agree there was great fear and then of course so many people could work from home. So supporting lockdown wasn’t particularly painful for them. But pretending that people who lost their livelihood are in favor of lockdown is just silly.
The reference proves my point. Not everyone supports lockdowns even though they may abide by the restrictions.
For crying out loud woman. I didn’t say everyone supported it. You really need a cup of tea. Are you a stalker?
Thanks Eva. You’ve proved my point beautifully. There simply is no poll that shows everyone in favor of lockdowns. So we could say that some were and some were not. Which was my original point. Claire’s comment was overly broad as I said. Not sure why that has sent her over the edge.
The elites want everybody to be poor? Isn’t that just neoliberalism?
Neo-feudalism. The NWO/Great Reset, MSM, Social Media’s plans for you.
If you impoverish the people the Gov are the one who fills their dinner pail, so they have to toe the line.
I completely agree Claire. I am about as anti-lockdown as they come, but I refuse to dismiss the general public as idiotic, however exasperated I may be with their views.
I’m often wrong about things in life and regardless, abusing people who disagree with me is not likely to bring them round to my opinions.
Finally a voice of reason. Thank you.
I do not dismiss the general public as idiotic, I declare they are idiotic. My calling them idiots is active, not passive.
‘All you gutless sheep out there who accepted lockdown as it was done, you are idiotic cowards.’
Yes. There was a threat. Whether the lockdowns were fully necessary or not, the virus existed.
Not to everyone. The threat was to the elderly and those with co-morbidities. To the vast majority there was no threat. He didn’t say the virus didn’t exist.
A significant difference is that anyone supporting Brexit was dismissed as uneducated bigots.
During the pandemic there has not been any significant MSM examination of alternative approaches or even the fundamental unfairness of lockdowns. Anyone protesting lockdown is dismissed as a ‘Q anon lunatic or an anti-vaxer’.
Very real fears about liberty have been completely ignored. It may be that lockdown is popular amongst the populace as opinion polls seem to show. However, these are easy to manipulate. The only time that I have been asked, the questions were deliberately skewed.
a) Do you believe that a government’s top priority should be to save peoples lives?
b) If lockdown helps to do this, should the government use lockdown as a policy?
Most people will answer yes to the second question. However if question is,
a) Lockdowns are thought to delay rather than stop pandemic waves and are incredibly costly in terms of wealth and other health issues. Given this should government use lockdown as a policy?
this will probably result in a different result. Beware opinion polls unless you can see all the questions and text.
OK. Let’s end this. I am not advocating lockdowns. After our first one we should have found ways to ensure the safety of those that needed it. There happy now.!My point was that it is unhelpful to be so negative towards people who don’t share your view and it is not conducive to intelligent debate. But because I have appeared to be open-minded about the issue. Well I am. I have been hounded by anti lockdowners. I do agree, however, that not enough discussion was had post the first lockdown. That said there are many issues I am passionate about that rarely get coverage in MSM but I don’t get hysterical about it.
That’s a great point, John. It very much depends on what is asked and how. And even with leading questions such as you noted, it isn’t unanimous that people supported lockdown, as Eva’s link above indicates. Too many people lost businesses and livelihoods for there to be unanimous agreement that lockdowns were a good idea. How many of these people were surveyed?
And while the first lockdown might have been forgiven if it had been kept short, once it was clear that lockdowns did not work, people should have been able to learn from the experience. Automatic locking down repeatedly even in the face of evidence that they don’t work, was just dumb.
Blunt and a bit harsh perhaps but not wrong in my opinion. I think that the herd comparison is apt. Fear is contagious and has infected the majority of the herd which seem prepared to stampede not to safety but away from a perceived threat.
The threat of a massive fine and the well-publicised actions of the police may have had something to do with it.
I think that was overplayed to be fair. But I acknowledge there were some silly incidents. Most people I know were respectful to the restrictions but not slaves to them. Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
Or perhaps rather the British public were perfectly capable of reading the paper or watching the news and seeing that a new disease nobody knew much about was putting European healthcare systems under unprecedented strain incomparable with seasonal flu (as a year’s worth of data now clearly shows), and more or less agreed with the scientific consensus that carrying on as normal would be unwise because of the high costs. Watching India today is a further reminder of the accuracy of this conclusion. Whether the particular policies pursued by each country achieved their aims or not will be debated forever, and will presumably vary quite considerably between countries and regions (particularly considering the divergent outcomes between countries that sealed off early such as Australia and South Korea, versus the European and American approach to keep borders open).
So is that you too, who are gullible, etc., Mr Preston, or just “all those other people?”
The most depressing thing for me is still seeing frightened people wearing masks in their own homes and cars.
Johnson did that. Well, he and others like him.
Permanent emotional damage.
No I have not.
Ideally I would like to see all three of their respective heads on spikes at the southern end of London Bridge.
Agreed. I have never voted in a Welsh election. 55% or more of the Welsh electorate seem to also think that voting is pointless.
The Welsh voted to leave & yet seem to then vote in politicians who would want to remain.
I suspect they know that UK is unlikely to rejoin the EU. They seem to have got over Brexit and moved on. They are focusing on the here and now. It’s not that confusing an issue.
Part of reason to vote brexit was to concentrate on own country-wheras someone like Mark Drafeford seem to do everything to sabotage his country’s economy-stunts like dividing up sections of Tesco. This sort of behaviour has generally been seen in England as Labour councilish-which is why they are trying out the Conservatives.
I’m not particularly defending Drakeford and the idiotic idea to close off shelves was done to appease small businesses – makes no sense to me or most of the people I know in Wales. That said, it appears the electorate are happy for him to continue in office. The people have voted just like they did with Brexit, they voted for what they wanted. The fact that you don’t like it is in fact irrelevant.
I didn’t know it was meant to appease small businesses-it just seemed to an outsider to be a lose-lose situation wheras you are saying its a win-lose situation & presumably the former went out to vote?
Yes apparently. Although it still doesn’t make sense when people could buy online. Anyway I’m not sure it was a huge consideration when people voted. On the whole it seems those living in Wales (not all of them of course) are fairly happy with the way the Covid issue was handled which might have boosted Drakeford’s position.
You are not alone.
Now, Mr Stanhope, your comments usually betoken a high-quality education capably deployed. But here you come close to insighting violence and, for me, that shoots your credibility pending a patently sincere apology (deleting the comment is not enough).
Honestly I am shocked at the number of up-votes you got for this sort of comment.
Just a hyperbolic expression of feeling, I’m sure it was not intended to be taken literally.
Of course he means literally – but only after a trial as traitors in Parliament under old, but existing, law. Anything else would be barbaric.
Oh he loves war mongering. It can be quite amusing.
That’s a bit over the top isn’t it? It’s been awhile since the Brits put heads on spikes. But it is a figure of speech.
“In vino veritas”. *
(*Alcaeus of Mytilene)
Yes that’s always been my problem!!
There is no known cure, thank God!
Thank God indeed.
We are now being given ‘hugging’ advise by the government-I think they may think your suggestion too risky at the moment
If one of those people comes on the radio or the TV I immediately switch off. I have no interest in a word they say. At the start of this I decided to live my life prudently and look after myself and the family as best I could.. Doing whatever was necessary. As is my right and duty,
I live in an occupied land that used to belong to us as free men and women. I have no further interest in voting or in participating in their fantasies. I will obey their laws if it means my freedom from prison and persecution but on no other account. I do not recognise their legitimacy over my country. Whatever others do is up to them .
They can either ignore me or deal with me. I prefer the former but if it is the latter then so be it.
You’ve described my view entirely. These people are tyrants, and I’ve no wish to be locked up so abide to the letter of the law, but I’m not playing the game of pretending they have our best interests at heart. F ’em all.
I have not either. But who else is there on the political landscape at the moment. Am looking for someone who is strong minded, with no allegiances to any group or any side, just a person to vote for, who has the real interests of the average person, and not their own, or their parties. Someone who is outstandingly intelligent, worldly, open minded, big picture thinking that rises above the constant babble of MSM and rhetoric of finger pointing from opposition political parties. Someone who is inspirational, makes you want to be the best you can be. Find me that person and I will vote for them every single day of the week. We have never been so many on this planet, and yet we can’t seem to produce leaders who really can lead in the most marvellous way.
I am sure you are not alone. I am curious though. Are you looking for a modern-day De Gaulle, or another Trump? Or, dare I say it, another Mussolini?
If he is part of the group-thing he is looking for a modern day Mao.
I would like to feel inspired that’s all.
“Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists”. *
Or perhaps even another Adolph?
He did rather well in the 1933 Elections as I recall.
Anyone like that is kept wall away from the reigns of power by the ‘Donors’ the class of wealthy who control the campaign funds, and so own the parties, and so do everything they can to prevent the people from having a leader who makes them actually be empowered. Only the ones who have sold out to the swamp are allowed to rise in politics. The MSM is their bi *ch, and is the tool used to keep you down, and the correct lackey in power.
Reins of power. (Are Fennie and I a joke to you people? Tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Freddie, what can I say, except… Bravo!
After the second world war people wanted a change and there was a labour landslide (as in the opposition win handsomely, rather than labour per se), but not this time. Is it because we are still “at war”?
When will we be “at peace” again?
Thanks again from a very dark and gloomy Scotland.
This ‘recovery phase’ is merely the 1939-1940 8 months of the ‘Phony War’. The situation is the sort of normal time in those months where things seemed like before, but then the actual War began in full.
During the mad lockdown the Gov borrowed and spent to keep things going – the top 0.01% made hundreds of Billions, the Stock market inflated to double its worth as the money had to go somewhere, hard assets like houses and gold rocketed up as the printed money seeked a hiding spot and the banks kept interest at zero, but soon Now is payback, and you do not feel it as the Gov keeps printing – but that is to end because debt cycles must end…And then it is time to pay it back.
The gov can never pay that debt by tax, so it has to inflate it away, and so goes your savings and pension, and most likely Stagflation, possibly hyperinflation, maybe a deflationary depression even. Anyone remember their grannies storied of the Great Depression?
Sounds like Scotland is pretty euphoric at the moment.
Only SNP supporters.
I agree Stockholm Syndrome has played a large part in the success of Conservatives at the local elections. Consider all the brainwashing that has gone on telling us how SCARY Covid19 is and how wonderful B.J. and SAGE and lock downs are at keeping us safe from this terrible THREAT.
Add to that, how alternative views have been repressed. E.g. Great Barrington Declaration. Treatments that would have helped but would not make money for big pharma have been banned/misused to get false results etc. The media have been bribed by government advertising. The House of Commons has been sidelined. All we have been fed is Press Releases telling us that BJ SAGE, Hancock, Valance, Whitty, are the good guys looking after us. Plus this ‘wonderful’ vaccination!
Pass me the sick bucket.
Too true, I’ve been thinking this all morning but it’s notable that the BBC, Sky etc don’t even consider it
‘Labour First Minister Mark Drakeford has been returned with an extraordinary increase in his majority’. Not extraordinary at all. In Wales on Thursday 16- and 17-year-olds were voting for the first time since the law was changed in 2019. Don’t underestimate the strength of anti-English feeling in Wales with which these young people have grown up. The Valleys and the North East respond by voting Labour, in the far West this is expressed through a vote for Plaid.
Oh dear you really don’t understand Welsh politics do you? I’m not really sure I do. You can’t blame it on the young. A lot of them didn’t even register to vote. Pembrokeshire (Little England) way out West is staunchly Conservative. The Plaid areas have near enough always been Plaid. The border areas waiver between Lib, Con but rarely Plaid and rarely Labour. The Welsh vote was not anti English. The Welsh were voting for themselves – why you think they were thinking of the English in this instance is beyond narcissistic.
Having lived in Wales for 32 years, 20 of which were spent teaching in a bilingual secondary school, I stand by my post.
My view is that Drakeford and Sturgeon are selling “we hate the English” rather than independence.
Independence does not mean leaving the UK to join the EU.
Good points but normally in a hostage situation the threat is more easily defined than the mess we are now in. People have been terrorised into thinking the threat is far greater than it actually is and many are still too ignorant and unwilling to accept the reality of everyday risks.
Why else would most people think the government is so great for getting us out of the torture that they themselves put us in.
I think it is more a question of holding on to nurse for fear of something worse.
Locking down a country was a severe shock – people didn’t question it – they thought cripes! we must be in mortal danger!
We need strong leaders to protect us.
The more repressive leaders became the stronger they appeared and, theretofore, the more people became comforted. Stick with ’em.
For such leaders it is akin virtuous circle – cause havoc, which is easily done, and you become more popular! Progress on to more repression.
I suspect that the Sunk Cost Fallacy, whereby people demonstrate “a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made ” has more to do with the perception of politicians than Stockholm Syndrome.
Probably true. How depressing.
I agree and so do thousands of up when will the majority stop behaving like lemmings, what will it take ?
The Stockholm syndrome analogy might apply if there was an alternative that offered freedom rather than more captivity. No major party opposed any of the leaders, indeed Sir Kier tried to make political capital out of not locking us all up earlier, pretending his leadership would have saved more lives. When it comes to the debt burden our children will inherit Sir Kier wanted it to be even bigger. The only real opposition came from a small group on the government benches.
Has there really been a significant increase in the Conservative vote though, particularly allowing for the fact that a shedload of UKIP votes were looking for a home?
My belief is that as an unexpected consequence of the education system an increasing number of first timers who would previously have automatically voted Labour have instead gone Green. The effect is that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th parties are all to an extent chasing the same demographics namely everyone except the white working class.
Labour is increasingly in hock to the major city Muslim block vote which luckily for them is unlikely to go G or LD. Other than that though where can they look in future to increase their share above 30% let alone 40?
Not sure I agree. I think people like continuity in a time of crisis, and don’t want to risk a new incumbent having to get up to speed when things are constantly changing. All of them struggled at the start, but now seem on top of the situation. Why mess with that?
The continuation of lockdown and restrictions, however, you may have a point. There’s a security in having rules to follow, particularly if you haven’t suffered much (at all?) from lockdown effects. But I’m changing my mind on this too, lockdown genuinely seems to suit the introverts, and they are even more socially anxious than before with the possibility they may have to re-enter society.
Too many generalisations.
You’re probably right, certainly on the introvert assumption. So many variables atm though.
Oh there are indeed very many variables. In time we will see the full impact.
I think your penultimate paragraph is more likely. People are jaded and voting for the status quo is the easiest thing to do.
It’s pathetic, isn’t it.
There may be another answer-the new improved way of counting votes. Just for interest I looked up my own area & they are still undeclared-how long does it take to count 3 votes? The only ones declared so far are for Labour.
I don’t have a strong opinion on it tbh. If you believe in democracy then you have to accept how people voted.
“If you believe in democracy then you have to accept how people voted.”
If you believe in democracy you must suspect the vote manipulators of corrupting the system! The MSM basically decides who wins, not the voters as they are conditioned and Pavlov like trained to vote as they are directed. Then like Biden stole the vote from Trump by voter manipulation via postal votes and giving the vote to any wile having a billion Soros money to register the ones who know less of politics than cattle, and directing their votes…VOTE HARVESTING is the new way of stealing elections.
I’m talking about ( South) Wales. Where we have a number of parties. Don’t compare us to the US as there is little or no comparisons to be made. I don’t doubt the shenanigans that goes on in places but the MSM in UK as far as I can see has little or no interest in the nation to which I am referring.
Very interesting idea. If it’s true, should not the Americans have re-elected Trump? And should not the Germans be voting for Merkel’s CDU in droves? And should not Macron be a shoo-in for next year’s presidential election?
This might be the start of a very useful discussion. Does anyone want to write a companion blog which describes the governments around the world which have fallen foul of their electorates during the pandemic, and explains why?
Because the MSM. The MSM was the voice they listened to wile being held prisoner. The MSM is owned by the same masters who own the Politicians who held the West hostage.
The 2020 US election actually proves the theory. It wasn’t Trump who was telling people what they could and couldn’t do each day, was it? The criticism was more that he would NOT do that. He would not demand lockdowns and mask mandates.
While Joe, who campaigned on more potential lockdowns and continued mask wearing, he now says that maybe we can celebrate July 4th if we’re good till then. Oh, and everybody keep wearing those masks outdoors! So who actually represents a president trying to tell others what to do? If you wanted Anthony Fauci deciding what you could and could not do, you voted for Joe, not Donald.
Joe apparently thinks everyone is waiting for his signal. Completely delusional. And consequently much more ignored.
Maybe there is a little of that. Not sure what else would explain the increase in vote share for Drakeford, a man who, if memory serves, locked Wales down for two weeks to engineer a firebreak, and then blamed the population for not following the rules when the lockdown failed to make a dent in the figures.
You would have thought he would be out on his ear.
However, all these leaders have been very lucky with the sequence of events.
The vaccine roll-out is working, and the numbers are (and probably were anyway) declining at a rate which suggests we may be free of this soon.
It is quite conceivable that our governments have made mistake after mistake after mistake from the beginning, but that the result of their actions makes them look as if they were getting it right all along.
This would happen if the virus were following a cycle of infections which our politicians tracked as they locked down and released (Drakeford being the fly in the ointment there).
But that doesn’t address the point about loving our captors.
The public proved infinitely more docile than I expected, and a docile population will be quite prone to confuse abuse with kindness.
Johnson has – in my view, I hasten to add – abused us routinely for the past year, but has appeared to be doing so out of kindness. This kindness is reinforced for people when he tells us
we may soon be free. And so, I guess, we love him.
For the time being.
Most researchers think that the ‘imprisonment’ part is not the important part of Stockholm Syndrome. The important thing is that people are isolated from their usual source of moral and emotional support. So people have gone off on sales training weekend workshops and religious and political retreats and ended up unquestioning adherents to a new way of doing things, which seems to be the same sort of change, though not as shocking a result. This human transformative behaviour is the focus of detox-and-de-addiction centres for alcoholics and drugs addicts, so the idea of ‘separate people from their usual cohort and change their beliefs’ has been rather well studied in that context.
It seems to work better with groups — single individuals held hostage are less likely to end up converted to their captors’ position, presumably because the group tries to rely on each other to provide the standard of normal behaviour — and if the group isn’t up to the job you end up converting the whole group (with the odd person who just doesn’t engage with the captors) to the new normal. Single individuals are more likely to hit on the ‘do not engage with these people’ route to maintaining one’s personal beliefs. Of course, if you are held captive as part of a group that _is_ up to the job of defending its beliefs, ideals and norms then you are in the best position of all.
This is very different from the situation of the radicalised terrorists, who, despite being imprisoned, are not cut off from their usual sources of moral and emotional support – or at least not for long. Cutting these ties is the first necessary part of de-radicalising them — and it is proving to be a very difficult thing to do. Plus the trick is to make such prison de-radicalisations stick once you get them out of prison. Patty Hearst didn’t remain a terrorist, after all.
When it comes to your non-ideological criminals, the results are mixed. Some people really do make a break with their old ways and old past — prison is where they learn to turn their lives around, often with the help of counselling which does instill in them the new values of the law-abiding. Others move in the opposite direction — start out as slightly bent, end up as a hardened criminal. If we knew better why things worked out this way, we might design better programs for rehabilitation.
Hearst and the Stockholm hostages ended well, treated well for the situation, released back into a safe and prosperous world.
These Politicos have destroyed the education of the young, destroyed the economy, destroyed the health, destroyed the inner city and public transport (WFH), destroyed freedom, harmed mental health
Now in this fake recovery seem like they did OK to the sheep- but the inevitable crash they created with lockdown, the drop in productivity coupled with the massive borrowing and spending, is coming, and you silly lemming hostages are now going to get your endless beatings and abuse rather than freedom like Hearst got. Your real misery is yet to come.
The above useful idiots have been total stooges of China and did the work of Wrecking the West without a shot fired.
Well, certainly not all of us have “fallen in love with our captors”. A point often overlooked is the number of people who didn’t vote at all. Silence doesn’t mean acceptance. But a failure to make any comment will just be ignored by the media and those in power. I found this helpful:
As far as I know, there has never been a situation where a political party ruled by virtue of having a majority of the votes of all the electorate, only a majority of those who troubled to vote.
The use of “we” and “us” in this article is impertinent and obnoxious.
I, for one, feel not the slightest impulse to love Big Brother.
This is an incredibly intellectually lightweight piece. Does Mr Sayers have any empirical evidence to support his arguments?
None whatsoever it appears. I just think he wants another reference to Sweden.
Freddy is not one to confront issues, he is the ‘go along to get along’ interviewer. The choosing of the interviewees began very well, but now is dry toast and warm, tea when the Full Sunday roast is called for.
Please explain how criminals being imprisoned for crimes compares to innocents being taken hostage? It seems to me that each group is starting from a very different place mentally and emotionally.
The difference is down to mental state,criminals are instigators and hostages are victims for a start. Criminals often start with a selfish arrogance that entitles them to victimize others that they view as weaker and less intelligent. Victims often just can’t believe it is happening to them and cope how ever they can.
I seem to have missed the Claire versus Annette ‘Cat fight’, because the text comes out as one word per line on my mini-I pad..Very disappointed!
Anybody got any ideas why this is happening?
That had to have been a really boring cat fight.
Claire……people were in favor of lockdowns
annette…..not everyone was in favor of lockdowns
claire…..I’m not talking about lockdowns
annette…..uh yes actually you were, here’s a quote and then I simply said it was an over broad claim
eva…..85% of people answered surveys saying they were in favor of lockdowns after being asked if it was the governments duty to save lives and if so should there be lockdowns
annette…..thanks Eva. My point precisely
Many thanks, and as if. by a miracle, the text has been restored to about six words per line!
Ha ha! Good work.
Join the discussion
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.Subscribe