Violent words in politics must be condemned – but so must violent policies
|
Version 0 of 1. Archie Bland condemns the use of extreme language in political debate. (How the language of politics turned toxic, G2, 1 August). Quite right, particularly if it threatens individuals with physical or mental harm. However, disrespectful attacks are not new. Nye Bevan referred to the Tories as “lower than vermin” when they were opposing the creation of the NHS. Language does not create social reality, it reflects it. Our fragmented, unequal lives, driven by technology, push us to articulate our views in an abrupt, Twitter-influenced manner, in order to create maximum effect and evoke a response. Military analogies may cause a shudder on the liberal left as being inappropriate, but at least they have the virtue of being understood, unlike the opaque jargon of New Labour and corporate Britain. While unfailingly respectful, it is often deceitful. George Orwell categorised similar efforts as “the great enemy of clear language”, and “like a cuttlefish spurting out ink”. Tim WebbLondon • Archie Bland writes that the legend on a T-shirt worn by an elderly man saying “Eradicate the rightwing Blairite vermin” will have drawn a shudder from anyone familiar with the tropes of antisemitism and anti-immigrant prejudice. Bland is clearly too young to remember an earlier political use of the term “vermin”. I recall, as a child in 1948, the excitement when Aneurin Bevan said of the Tories that “they are lower than vermin”. Children were enrolled into the Vermin Club which, as far as I can remember, was intended to raise funds for the Tory party.Rolf ClaytonLondon • How puzzling to read a few thousand words from Archie Bland on violence in politics with no mention of a single violent policy. Could escalating violence in our lives be related to devastating austerity? Thousands of people declared fit for work have died. Perhaps the aggressive policing of our borders, with multiple deaths in detention, in camps at the UK’s edges or in boats in the Mediterranean has desensitised us? And how can Bland argue that female leaders contribute less to violent rhetoric with a straight face when just weeks ago Theresa May committed herself to the use of nuclear weapons? She did not yell “traitor” or “vermin”, but she did more violence with her simple yes than any tweet I’ve seen recently. Rather than pretend reality is composed of “violent” words devoid of context, Bland could ask who is dying, where, how and why. Becka HudsonLondon • A big “thank you” to Bland for his excellent and timely piece. It should be required reading for all politicians and political activists.Jennifer LorchLeamington Spa, Warwickshire • It is generally believed that the Thatcher government prepared for the 1984-85 miners’ strike with the clear intention of smashing a strong trade union and thus weakening irrevocably all other organised workers’ institutions. The consequences of that government victory can be seen to this day, and played no little part in the disillusionment of those in Britain’s depressed towns and regions. They are now referred to as “the left behind”, and it is said they contributed greatly to the Brexit vote. In your obituary of John Lyons (1 August), leader of the Electrical Power Engineers Association at the time of the strike, you quote him as saying: “The EPEA could have won the dispute for Scargill without lifting a finger if we had decided to back him.” They didn’t, and the miners – and the greater trade union movement – suffered the consequences. Yet, in the first line of the obituary, you refer to Lyons as “a moderate trade union leader”. In what sense could a union leader’s refusal to support another group of workers, in a struggle that was pre-planned by the government as a chance to break the power of organised labour, and which had all the social consequences described so vividly in your pages over the years, be considered a “moderate” act? Acts of omission can surely be as immoderately cruel in their consequences as acts of commission; and violent metaphors are clearly not the only forms of language that can distort rational political discourse in the UK.Mike HineKingston upon Thames • Angela Eagle approves Owen Smith’s apology for his recent sexist comments about Theresa May (Report, 30 July) and recommends “sensitive use of language”. But, like earlier “gaffes” by David Cameron (“Calm down, dear”, to her), Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, et al, these are not mere linguistic misdemeanours. Such comments expose these men’s lingering racism, homophobia and/or misogyny. For the Labour party to think an MP who exhibits such attitudes is fit for office, never mind being considered as leadership material, is beyond belief. And, as reported elsewhere, this man has form. So, at last Saturday’s gay pride celebrations in Liverpool, there was Smith having his photo taken with as many women as he could fling his arm around. He really needed to be seen mingling with gay activists and other non “normals” (having described himself as the “normal” candidate – heterosexual, married with kids – as opposed to Eagle, “the gay candidate”). The acceptance of Smith as a leadership candidate confirms that the entwined issues of racism, misogyny and homophobia as legitimate political targets for Labour (as important as social class and poverty) and as serious issues for the culture of the Labour party and the unions still have a way to go. Also, the latest smear against Jeremy Corbyn, the claim that before he became leader there were no such problems, is laughable, mendacious and vindictive. Val WalshCrosby, Merseyside • The Guardian’s editorial position and basic line on Corbyn since he became party leader is that he is awkward, feeble, uncharismatic, laughably media-unsavvy and frighteningly unfit to take the Labour party into the next election. Yet your columnist Hadley Freedman (From Labour’s hard left to Donald Trump, it’s been the summer of the personality cult, Weekend, 30 July) accuses “hard left” leader Corbyn of inspiring a “cult of personality” (presumably as opposed to someone who’s able to offer inspiring ideas and principles) among his dazzled “worshippers”. So which is it? Is Corbyn The Hopeless Nebbish or Charles Manson in a Corduroy Jacket? Please clarify, for the record! Lee RobinsonLondon • Buffoon is appropriately back in use. So many MPs now sit on the fence, the American term mugwump should be revived.David BaleExmouth, Devon • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |