Despised - Paul Embery

Скачать книгу

Yet, as the full impact of the new global market began to take hold, and as their lives and community were subjected to rapid and unprecedented economic and demographic change, their expressions of anxiety and discontent fell on deaf ears. They soon came to realise that not only was much of the liberal establishment impervious to their plight, it actively despised them.

      Everything they had ever known was suddenly transforming around them. The cheerleaders for globalisation told them it was all for their own good. They said it would bring improved GDP and cultural enrichment. But the people of Barking and Dagenham felt no better for it financially, culturally or spiritually. It wasn’t change per se that they opposed; it was the sheer pace and scale of it. And if I – a young left-wing activist and member of the Anti-Nazi League who had marched against the National Front – could understand this (as I came to eventually), why couldn’t the politicians who had been around for much longer?

      Hundreds of working-class communities similar to Barking and Dagenham can speak of their own experiences of having been neglected by our political class in recent times. These places – inhabited by proud citizens who place a high value on social solidarity, belonging and rootedness, and are often imbued with what many among the political and cultural elites deem to be outdated and uncultivated views – have become the new frontier in British politics. The quiet – and, more latterly, not so quiet – rebellion that has been fomenting in these areas is what gave us Brexit. It’s what gave us the evisceration of the Labour Party in 2019. It’s what has created a challenge to the dominance of cosmopolitan liberalism, which its advocates were certain represented the end point of social progress.

      The people in these places cried out to those in power to heed their concerns. But for years these cries went unheard. That Labour – the party towards which so many working-class voters had for decades shown so much loyalty – was complicit in this disregard of them was inexcusable and ought never to be forgotten.

      This mindset owes itself to the fact that there has existed for some time on the Left a disturbing level of group-think, the consequence of which is that key planks of ideology are rarely challenged and the certainty of partisans in their own moral rightness is mutually reinforced. By extension, those who dare to think or argue differently – especially if they do so from within the movement – are marginalised and abused.

      This, in turn, has created a culture on the Left – one which in recent years has begun to infect public life generally – in which freedom of expression is nominally defended but is, in reality, under attack as never before. Honest debate and disagreement, particularly around contentious issues, are becoming increasingly precious. In their place, a rigid and oppressive conformity is demanded. Opinions that are still common currency across large parts of our nation have been delegitimised and effectively banished from the public square.

      We have a new national religion – liberal wokedom – and anyone who blasphemes against it can expect to be vilified by its high priests and followers. Those who hold positions of prominence or influence had better be especially careful, for they risk seeing their livelihoods or reputations destroyed if they dare express dissent.

      It is no coincidence that at the same time as acting as the driver for this suffocating new reality, the Left has increasingly immersed itself in the destructive creed of identity politics, in which minorities are divided into discrete categories according to their race or religion or sexuality, and classified as inherent victims who must be protected from an oppressive and ‘privileged’ majority. This entire approach has, in practice, gone far beyond the laudable objective of defending people against prejudice, and has sought instead to promote the separateness and unique characteristics of these groups as virtuous in their own right, and the groups themselves as thereby worthy of favourable political treatment. Needless to say, all of this serves only to fragment the working class and undermine what should be the primary goal of developing common bonds and building the maximum unity required to defend its interests.

      There is a chance, of course, that Labour has lost for ever much of its one-time core vote. That’s why it would be a fatal error for the party to assume that things could not get even worse. An organisation whose members, activists and representatives have so little in common with so many working-class voters – neither speaking their language, nor sharing their interests or priorities – can hardly hope to maintain their support. In today’s Labour Party, it is the liberal left and, to a lesser degree, the far-left that hold sway – two camps whose adherents are often at loggerheads with each other in the battle for supremacy, but neither of which ultimately has the capacity to reconnect the party with its old heartlands. The party is now an organisation comprised largely of urban middle-class liberals, students and social activists; it is no surprise, therefore, that it is towards this constituency that its policies and pronouncements are most overtly aimed.

      Labour has a mountain to climb if it is to be a serious electoral force again. And if it proves unequal to the task, it will relegate itself to being a party of permanent protest. In everything it says and does over the coming years, Labour must consider as a first concern what the impact will be in its old working-class heartlands. All policy development must be geared to this end. This will mean a sharp rebalancing of its priorities – focusing less on topics that do not command mass appeal or interest, and more on the doorstep issues that voters see as relevant to their everyday lives.

Скачать книгу