When Words Lose Their Integrity........

This morning I posted my local election and AV voting documents. It took me only micro seconds yesterday to complete my vote but rather longer to work out which slip went where in the various envelopes!  As I completed the process I noticed in my  newspaper, which lay on the table, the various comments about our Prime Minister’s latest contribution to the cultural and political life of the nation – his 'calm down dear' put down to the Labour MP Angela Eagle. I also noticed at the side of my newspaper, one of my birthday presents: a copy of Bertrand Russell’s seminal 'History of Western Philosophy'.

In the couple of days since Mr Cameron’s comment much has been written which you may or may not agree with – you may regard it as sexist, a bit of fun or whatever. For me I find it very sad and at the same time rather worrying in that it represents an aspect of politicians in general, and David Cameron in particular, that is unedifying and quite frankly unacceptable. Also for me, it links very closely with my AV vote. I thought about this as I filled in my voting slips, looked at the newspaper and the Russell book and recalled some words of historian Tony Judt.

 David Cameron is the Prime Minister. He is, I understand, a  descendent of  William IV. His education at Eton and the Oxford showed him to be academically very able and he left Oxford with a 1^st in PPE – no mean feat. Whatever one’s views of him or his politics it cannot be denied that he has been instrumental in turning the Tory party round and got them back into power when only a few years ago they looked unelectable. I might not like the man or his politics but I cannot but acknowledge a CV like this! But at the same time I find him representative of a worrying trend in politicians in that he seems bent upon reducing everything to its lowest common denominator. His party have oft complained over the years about dumbed down youngsters, bog standard comprehensives, poor teaching, broken Britain and the like but to me he represents all of this with a  vengeance. The quality of his argument, his  tendency to reduce all to the lowest level and the sloppiness of his ideas never ceases to amaze. Tony Judt, if he was still alive, would weep. 'For many centuries' wrote Judt in his final, moving book, 'The Memory Chalet', 'in the western tradition, how well you expressed a position corresponded closely to the credibility  of your argument. Rhetorical styles might vary .... but it was never a matter of indifference: poor expression belied poor thought. Confused words suggested, at best, confused ideas.'

Only  a few weeks ago at the start of the AV Referendum campaign I watched Cameron give a speech against the proposed changes in which he said AV was just like Usain Bolt winning a race and then being told he hadn't won, that the  guy who came second had.  I saw this same argument peddled again yesterday when I read the 'No to AV' leaflet which had dropped through my door – a photo of four sprinters crossing the line and the man who was in third place being declared winner. Now, if Cameron is as bright as his CV seems to indicate he will know that this is an utterly fallacious argument and for him to peddle it and to put it forward as a reasonable commentary is at the best misleading and in my view tantamount to deceiving the electorate. Anyone reading this blog will know why it is misleading and incorrect – but briefly, winning a race is about one, measurable criteria, that is, who is the fastest. Winning a political debate or voting in an election is about opinion not fact and there are many shades of opinion. It is about ensuring that the parliament or council fairly represents the viewpoints of its electorate. AV or some form of proportional representation may go some way to address this.  Many will vote against AV because they feel that it might put back the ultimate goal of true proportional representation and I would respect their viewpoint on this. I cannot, however, accept Cameron’s nutty analogy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying whether I support or dislike AV. Having read much of the 'No' literature there are indeed many powerful arguments for voting against. What I am against is this dumbed down popularisation of the arguments. I'm further worried, and indeed very cynical, when I read in the 'No' literature that I should vote against the measure because David Gower, Darren Gough and other famous sports stars and 'celebs' are doing  so. David Gower tells me 'I'm used to a system in sport...where if you win, you win; it's as simple as that....I can't see why politics should be any different'. Well, David, if you can't see why it should be different and why an election is not like a cricket match then I'm afraid that speaks volumes for your intellect and I'm not sure that I want your advice. I don't somehow see in yesteryear Churchill or Atlee or Macmillan or Foot or indeed Thatcher looking for support from the sporting heroes and celebs of the day!

Many of course would argue  that there are valid arguments to support the 'first past the post' system. Indeed there are and it is these  that our Prime Minister should be enunciating – not this drivel about winning races. But, sadly, in his anxiety to appeal to all people as a 'regular guy', Mr Cameron frequently  slips into this regurgitation of false truths, jingoistic comment and sound bites. In doing so he treats the electorate with contempt. Either he knew what he was doing (and as he is a bright lad I cannot believe that he did not) and is therefore guilty of misleading the electorate with this canard. Or, he does not understand the arguments and the issues and is therefore not competent to be PM.

He is not, however,  alone in this anxiety to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Gordon Brown and Blair before him were equally anxious to take the populist line of argument or curry the electorate's favour by aligning themselves with popular culture – telling us that they were a keen viewers of the 'X Factor' or 'Strictly Come Dancing' and the like. Our political debate is increasingly characterised by simplification, celebrity comment, popularism and PR speak. On the night New Labour swept to power in May 1997 I watched the results confirming a Labour victory – but my celebrations were short lived. At first relieved that after so many  years the Tories were out, a few minutes later my aspirations in tatters when I  heard the truly awful and banal singing of the mindless 'Things can only get better' New labour 'anthem' signalling to me that aspiration and inspiration were, if not dead, certainly in 'extremis' – it was all a PR exercise meant to curry favour and appeal to the masses not inspire and motivate them.  This cannot be what Prime Ministers – indeed politicians in general - should be about. If they do not inspire, widen horizons and convince by the force,  logic and rightness of their argument then they are, to use a much used cliché 'unfit for purpose'. Sadly my verdict on Cameron could equally apply to many members of the government and the Shadow Cabinet. What has happened to the giants of political debate, the great orators, the politicians who, even when you totally disagreed with them, you knew that deep down they were right and knew more than you. Where are the people who inspired by the breadth of their argument and wit? A brief read of the 'memoirs' of Tony Blair illustrates my point completely - banal story telling of the worst tabloid kind rather than a lucid and thought provoking exposition of political belief and action. Instead of policy, comment and argument based upon intellectual rigour and sound philosophy we have  3^rd rate dross thought up by the likes of foul mouthed Alastair Campbell or by  Essex ex-'News of the World'  man Andy Coulson and then put into the mouths of our leaders.  If the level of our debate is to be rooted in popular appeal, shoddy arguments and the lowest common denominator comment then we are entering dangerous waters – it is in these regions where extremism flourishes. The facile argument, the ill thought out analogy, the populist phrase, the intentional manipulation of the facts by spurious argument are but part of the same 'rabble rousing' scale  which encompasses and characterises extremist parties like the BNP.

The wit of David Cameron as he 'puts down'
Angela Eagle

And so to Angela Eagle. To her credit Ms Eagle did not make a fuss about the comment from Cameron. Perhaps she felt, like me, it was all just a little sad. But what does it say about Cameron? Is he trying to impress us by showing that like the rest of us he watches TV and he knows the advertisement catch phrases? Is he trying to align himself with a  pathetic, failed film maker, Michael Winner, famed for this mindless phrase and who only a few weeks ago was in serious trouble because of the objectionable comments he was tweeting about the size of journalist Victoria Coren’s bosom? Or is Cameron just an old fashioned male chauvinist pig? Is he trying to say, 'I'm your mate' - I'm just like you? Or is it just another dimension of a man who breaks bread with the grotesque 'Oxfordshire set', a reflection of the company he keeps - politicians,  alleged 'celebrities' and  media personnel from News International and the like.  People one could only describe as upper class riffraff  - a number of whom are closely linked with a number of very dubious events and life styles. . People like boorish, overgrown schoolboy Jeremy Clarkson who  would roar with laughter at Cameron's comment to Angela Eagle. Take your pick - but whichever one you choose the result is the same it makes Cameron look a boor and a fool - not a Prime Minister and certainly not a statesman.

Sadly, I do not believe the comment to Ms Eagle was a slip of the tongue. If it was, then in a Freudian way, it says something about Cameron’s sense of humour and his viewing habits if these are the things that come into his mind in a flustered moment when he is corrected on a matter of fact. If it was not, then he knew what he was saying and doing and stands accused of  sexism. As with the AV comment – he cannot have it both ways.

But the real losers are ourselves and democracy when the quality of argument and discussion is reduced to this in the scramble for power.  As Judt so succinctly put it  'There is now a glib "popular" articulacy based upon shoddy prose and quality of argument and when words lose their integrity so do the ideas they express.' We should all be worried - not about AV or First Past The Post or Proportional Representation - but about the abilities and the motives of our elected representatives.