Why I mistrust too much anger in politics
I mistrust too much anger in politics. A bit is all right, especially when the other side are telling lies or refusing to listen. But not too much. And not too much self-righteousness either, please. None of us is right all the time. That’s why we have a Loyal Opposition and an adversarial Parliament, and the presumption of innocence, come to that.
Perhaps I am just too conscious of the horrors of Civil War. I am drawn to historical depictions of these wars, by a fearful fascination. How did men of the same nation end up slaughtering each other? Could this happen among our gentle hills and woods? Yes, it could, and has. Start treating opponents as enemies, and there is no telling where it might end.
I live in a city that was besieged in such a war, and where you can still, if you look carefully, find traces of old fortifications in now-peaceful suburbs. I have read, in history and in fiction, depictions of these events, of the horrible relentless inevitability with which the two sides have first ceased to listen to each other, then turned their backs on each other and finally begun killing each other. The past, as Evelyn Waugh once said, is the only thing we possess for certain. We should pay close attention to it.
Here is Kipling’s ‘Edgehill Fight’, (read it in full here http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_edgehill.htm )
… full of pain and regret at the turning of Englishman against Englishman:
‘And the raw astonished ranks stand fast
To slay or to be slain
By the men they knew in the kindly past
That shall never come again’
You might find something a little similar in Gore Vidal’s rather beautiful description (in his novel ‘Lincoln’) of Abraham Lincoln visiting wounded Confederate prisoners of war. One of the badly-injured young men, unlikely to survive and in some pain, turns away from him in loathing and disgust. ‘Son, we are all the same at the end’, says the unhappy President, quietly. The reader alone knows how true this will be, and how soon. It is in this book that Lincoln, driven to misery and self-loathing by the carnage he must pursue to the end, rages that the very rooms in which he works and sleeps seem to have filled up with blood.
And these episodes are nothing to the Civil Wars of Russia and Spain, both in our times, adding modern weapons to pre-mediaeval cruelty. Not to mention the merciless wars of Ireland in the early part of this century, and their more recent sequels.
So I sicken a little when – in a country divided almost equally on a contentious issue – my own side takes such a scornful view of my opponents. When I wrote my Mail on Sunday column http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/12/we-crushed-the-remainers-now-we-must-be-kind-to-them.html
at the end of last week, I did not know until I was at my keyboard how very much I felt that some sort of generosity was called for. If you love your country – and this is the only real motivation for wanting its independence – then you also love your fellow countrymen and your fellow countrywomen. Therefore if you disagree with them , you seek to do so with patience, kindness and tolerance, and a readiness to listen. So what if they don't do the same? 'Render unto no man evil for evil'.
To me, for many years, the most moving part of any election has been the victor’s declaration (not always made) to serve *all* his constituents, whether they voted for him or not – and my own (Labour) MP has been an exemplary follower of this principle, to my personal knowledge. Heaven help us if it is ever otherwise.
Most sensible pro-EU people now recognise that the vote went against them and that we must therefore leave the EU.
I have mocked those who did not recognise the outcomeof the referendum and fantasised about frustrating the result, reminding them of Brecht’s joke about how, the people having failed the elite, the elite would like to elect a new people. Too bad. Once you accept the democratic principle, the majority is the absolute decider.
They, like those who wanted to leave, took part in the campaign on that basis. But of course it was never quite as simple as that , especially in a free, plural society with a de facto separation of powers, adversarial newspapers, law courts, a powerful civil service and the BBC,
Would leavers, had we lost, have accepted the vote? Yes. Would we have sunk back and given up all hope of leaving forever? I somehow doubt it. We would also have continued to seek to block many aspects of EU membership, such as Schengen and the Euro, Turkish or Ukrainian membership of the EU and any plans for a European Army.
Remainers are now doing the approximate equivalent. Do I blame them? No. What is more, they have quite a lot to work on. It is silly to pretend that they don’t. Let me explain.
Be in no doubt that there are many and varied ways of achieving the apparently simple aim of leaving the EU. And that if that aim is badly messed up, there could one day even come a campaign to rejoin the EU, which will undo all you have achieved.
One of the many odd, unsatisfactory things about the referendum is that the movement which won it dissolved itself at the point of victory. We did not elect a new government (though we destroyed the old one, which has been replaced by a pale ghost of its former self). We cannot turn to the leaders of the ‘Leave’ campaign and say ‘what exactly did you mean to do next?’, because they are scattered to the winds, some in internal exile, some hidden inside the government, some fulminating in UKIP factions.
If we could ask them, what would they say? How deeply had they thought about the matter? Did they even have a unified position? Weren’t some of them globalists who wanted Britain out of the protective embrace of the EU so it could be more open to the keen winds blowing from the far East?
Weren’t others more my sort, who value Britain’s special unique nature and didn’t want to see it absorbed or erased or diluted either by the EU or by globalisation? These aren't really allies. they have a single negative desire - to get out of the EU. But their positive plans are hostile to each other.
Then there’s the question of responsibility. Victory in an election (as those who take part well know) means that you are now personally in charge of keeping the promises you made. Victory in a referendum has no such automatic price. We did not elect a new government last June. We just robbed the existing government of the central pillar of most of its activity, and forced it to do something it didn’t want to do and will do as slowly and unwillingly as it can. There is no force in British politics which can change that.
The Leave campaigners then either went home quietly, or began writing rude memoirs about their allies, or embarked on wild political manoeuvres, only to be rolled flat by the bizarre juggernaut of Theresa May, who inherited Downing Street because she had been vague and rather cowardly, and who was given the job of implementing a policy she opposed -presumably because she had opposed it more feebly than most.
We must also wonder, given their performance for many years before in front-line politics, whether *all* the major figures in the Leave campaign were in fact wholly committed to the cause they espoused; or whether they ever intended to win. I was utterly amazed when Alexander ‘Boris’ Johnson and Michael Gove declared themselves in favour of leaving. It was at that moment that my former certainty, that ‘Remain’ would win the vote, began to evaporate. I had actually argued with Mr Gove, many years before, that the main reason leaving the EU was unpopular was hat no leading politicians were in favour of it. The public therefore assumed that it was a dangerous policy. At the time, as I recall, he took the David Cameron view, that it was a marginal subject we shouldn't 'bang on' about.
Of course both sides were unscrupulous. But that's not worth worrying about. As so often, Larry Elliott of ‘The Guardian’ makes the key point very well. He disposes of Remainers’ moans about the untruths told by the ‘Leave’ campaign here
But this frivolous disregard for truth (on both sides) was partly a consequence of the irresponsibility I mention above. As soon as the campaign was over, both sides bolted back to their normal homes and loyalties, like vandals discovered in mid-crime by the police, scattering down every available dark alleyway, never to meet again.
I also have to mention the amazing predicament of the Labour Party, whose leader was ideally positioned to do as little as he could to discourage his party’s voters from registering a huge protest against mass immigration - one millions of them had been longing to make for years.
So, we have a narrow victory, based on unique circumstances, obtained largely by people who didn’t know (and hadn’t thought very hard about) what they were going to do next. Is this really a sound basis for a triumphalist parade? Not everyone on our side is brilliant and good. Not everyone on the other side is stupid or wicked. Fight them, by all means, but with reason and facts, not self-righteous rage. If the vote were held again now, it might just as easily go the other way. Is it wise to pretend to be unaware of that, or to think it just doesn’t matter?
And now, as a nation and an economy, we are up against an EU in which at least one very skilful and dogged rival, France, will do all she can to do us down. France has several reasons to do this. Her establishment wants to squash Marine le Pen’s Front National, and making an exit from the EU look hard and painful will help this process. Then there’s the little matter of the Battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar, and French resentment (shared by Germany) of the continuing dominance of the City of London in European finance. Do you think they’re going to be nice to us?
And is it really not worth noting that figures such as Christopher Booker, the most sustained and well-informed campaigner against British membership of the EU, are genuinely worried that we might damage ourselves if we seek too much, too fast? The attitude of some on this blog has been close to Stalinist in their empurpled unreasoning wrath. Any minute now I expect to hear voices accusing me and Christopher Booker of wrecking railroads and sabotage, and of being secret agents of Brussels.
Sure, economic logic dictates that they want our markets. But the EU has always been a political body, with economics coming second to politics, or how could they have agreed to merge their currencies? Politics comes first. They cannot make it easy or cheap for us to leave. There will be a price of some sort.
Finally, I’d mention (as I did in my Sunday article) the fact that the ghastly embodiment of cynicism, the Conservative Party is still in office in this country. This is a party which is very good at political murder, as Margaret Thatcher and Iain Duncan Smith could readily attest. Those Tories who push now for a hard and fast departure may find that Mrs May and her inner circle give them all the freedom they want, wait for them to fail, and then destroy them.
What might the result of that be? Let’s speculate wildly. A catastrophic failure of negotiations, a British walk-out, or a an EU refusal to concede another inch, a run on Sterling (which is waiting to happen again anyway), a humiliating return to talks (on worse terms) and then perhaps that long-threatened election, fought as a second referendum on the half-hearted deal we eventually get?
I don’t know, and nor do you. All I know is that I find the noisy, chest-thumping over-confidence of some Leavers increasingly hard to take. I think it is dangerous for the country and, regardless of whether anyone likes what I say or not, I am going to point this out.
Martin
I certainly agree that no where near majority of Brexiteers match the lively description you offer.
However, those who do - and looking at voting figures for the more extreme political groups over the years where such groups put up candidates in a limited number of seats, one can quickly arrive at a figure of a million or more who might well match that description. The arrival of UKIP provided a far less 'soul-searching home' for those with more extreme views (hence their rather public decision to ban membership to ex-BNP members...) when they decided to put up candidates in the majority of seats. Where they placed their referendum votes is not hard to imagine.
Posted by: Alan Thomas | 08 December 2016 at 04:56 PM
Anonymous writes,
”…, but when are you going to actually be of any use ?”
Although I think I can understand, to some extent, your frustration, I think it is not fair to say so.
If I am not mistaken, your words quoted above answers my question why so many people tend to misunderstand or not paying enough attention to what Mr Hitchens has actually been writing, speaking and responding patiently to all kinds of opinions on this issue.
As a relatively objective outsider, though I also am living in one of the countries ’belonging’ to EU, I do not think Mr Hitchens has basically changed his opinions about the EU and its relationship to the UK for many years.
Posted by: Ky | 08 December 2016 at 04:23 PM
Re: Mr Thomas, Courageous people stand up to racism they don't promote it. I wouldn't personally say that stepping into a boxing ring where the sole purpose is to knock your opponent unconscious is a particularly courageous act and boxing is a sport where both competitors agree to the rules. I don't think anybody agreed to have racist abuse leveled at them. I have already explained the other point, if you don't have any sense of humour then that's your problem but please don't expect to ridicule my comments or misrepresent what I have said and not expect me to respond appropriately. You are the one using weasel words, I am just simply stating the truth.
Posted by: Martin | 08 December 2016 at 03:06 PM
Far from being the chest pounding, bicep curling, foot stamping, territory marking, cave dwelling primate that Mr. Hitchens portrays, I would regard myself as more of someone advising on matters of public concern. Nor do I accept that the majority of Brexiteers are club wielding, EDL marching, Dad’s Army watching, anthem singing, lager drinking, flag-waving half-wits as many of the remainers, would like to espouse to. I imagine they are mostly ordinary working people who have come to the realisation, as they did in America, that there is a small elite of patronising, fraudulent people masquerading as elected bodies who have hijacked liberalism in order to create a society where selfishness, failure and excuses prevail over fairness, equality and morality.
Posted by: Martin | 08 December 2016 at 02:40 PM
In my post of a few minutes ago, I mentioned a link, which I think might be against the rules of this blog, so that my post might not appear here.
I would say, however, that video confirmation that Mrs B is right in saying that both Messrs Cameron and Osborne did say that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market is easily found on the internet.
Posted by: Mike B | 08 December 2016 at 12:59 PM
Martin 8/12 at 10.26am
"What is courageous about...?"
In the same way that stepping in a boxing ring takes courage. And, do you not feel it takes courage (of a different kind) to write an article that was bound to upset many - but not all - regular readers of a blog that permits comment from all sides of the political arena?
By the way, I've as much idea as to what 'paste and cut' means. Nor did I know what some strange text-speak symbol means following a very derogative remark. I'm pretty certain, however, that in a court of law such a weasel symbol would cut no ice whatsoever. Perhaps this is due to a generation gap or two...
Posted by: Alan Thomas | 08 December 2016 at 12:43 PM
Regarding PH's response to Mrs B's point concerning Cameron's and Osborne's assertions that a vote to leave the EU meant a vote to leave the Single Market, I would refer him to Guido Fawkes's blog of 12/10/16 at 09:58PM, which carries video clips showing both men clearly making this assertion.
Posted by: Mike B | 08 December 2016 at 12:35 PM
C Morrison - further to my last comment addressed to you. I see now that none other than the Pope himself agrees with me (or the other way round, if you like). According to Mail Online he has just rather angrily warned against the dangers of the internet.
He's quote as saying that "spreading disinformation was 'probably the greatest damage that the media can do" because "it directs opinion in only one direction and omits the other part of the truth".And he referred to "the danger of using the media to slander political rivals".
Underlining his point in rather drastic language, he said that "scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia, or arousal from excrement, and consumers of these media risked coprophagia, or eating excrement."
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 08 December 2016 at 11:48 AM
Mr. Thomas writes, "It could be said it takes courage to carry an EDL slogan when marching through Oldham ". Really? What is courageous about pledging your allegiance to racism., may I enquire? As far as I'm aware, courageous people are repelled by racism, they don't promote it.
Posted by: Martin | 08 December 2016 at 10:26 AM
John McCarthy is right that many left wing posters on Guardian blogs will display a lack of tolerance and extreme political bias, but then again, has he viewed the right wing posters on the Daily Mail blogs ( mostly from kippers) who display similar temperments? Mr Hitchens gives a very fair, pragmatic and balanced view of our current predicament. I reluctantly voted remain, but fully accept the result and want the best possible deal from our exit. This will not be achieved by shouting and flag waving, but by sensible negotiation. I particularly enjoyed the Guardian linked article and the football analogy and it does demonstrate that the Guardian is at l sat willing to allow the voice of the 'other' side. I would be very surprised if the likes of the Daily Express would accommodate 'remain' views in the same manner.
Posted by: Kevin | 08 December 2016 at 10:11 AM
I do not disagree generally with PH's sentiments re Brexit. I would not say I am an angry Brexit person. If Mr Hitchens reads what I wrote, not what he imagines I wrote, he will see that I am saying one thing: After years of his polemics, jeering and exaggeration about the EU, the patrician and sanctimonious tone of his MoS column was a bit much. I think the reaction on this blog bears this out.
***PH remarks. He simply cannot have been reading with any care. From the start, I opposed the referendum as a means of leaving the EU, and warned that it would lead to dificulties. I cannot see how any responsibe person, desire our departure form the EU could wish for what we now have - a government and Parliament opposed to leaving the EU, reluctantly and in a panic hurry trying to cobble together a plan for exit. You might as well call in a sociologist to fix a burst pipe, or a masseuse to put out a fire. As it happens I feel powerless and adrift, scared of the mess these people will make. The gravest danger is that it will be so bad that we rejoin the EU later under humiliating conditions. I really do not see why I should rejoice over, or advocate this stupid mess that I never desired.
I did not risk ( and fully experience) the ire of my readers by calling for the end of the Conservative Party as an idle joke. I did so because I could not then see, and still cannot see, any proper rescue of this country while that party survives. To be against British membership of the EU is not to be for any mad, half-witted scheme to drag us out. I will not be lectured in this fashion any more. This is my last response to this largely unresponsive person, who is himself herself so committed to his or her cause that he or she hides behind a pseudonym. I simply do not think that an anonymous person has any business adopting this tone to me . The word 'stoking', by the way, is not a neutral verb but one designed to suggest inflammatory action. What does one stoke? Fires and furnaces. My arguments against the EU have at all times been based upon logic and facts. I have, I repeat, stoked nothing. Mr or Ms Nobody can sneer as much he or she likes. I am done with him or her. If George Orwell had adopted the cowardly tactic of posting personally hostile comments here under a name not his own, using an e-mail address that is also in a name not his own, then yes, I would have called him Mr Fake Name . I can think of no legitimate reason for this concealment, and regard it as poltroonery. If he or she believes what he or she says, then he or she can tell us who he or she is. ***
My pointing this out is not another way of saying I think we should persecute Remainers or angrily reject reason.
I also know perfectly well that Boris Johnson and various other nominal Leavers are globalisers. Any of them might have been for Remain, in the same way that Tony Blair might have been in the Tory Party had history been slightly different.
None of that is particularly germaine to the current dispute. Mr Hitchens says he 'has stoked nothing'. That actually made me laugh. He has written thousands of words in the service of doing down the EU, and the sister paper to the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail has pushed a heavy anti-EU, anti-immigrant line based very fairly on reporting the scandalous facts and figures around the EU. Mr Hitchens has pointed out to his readers time and time again the enforced immigration policy of the EU. He was one of the first – if not the first – mass market journalists to break ranks and condemn the Blairite immigration project. I salute him for it. He was doing it before Nigel Farage became a household name. At least a million people are said to read him regularly, and this goes back years. So his ‘not me, guv’ defence is rather laughable.
Would any right thinking member of the public, on looking over years of Mr Hitchens proselytising against the EU in the strongest terms, really conclude he had 'stoked nothing'? Referring to the EU as a 'prison camp' and comparing it to North Korea 'is just patient explanation' is it? Perhaps I will have another dig around and find some more ‘patient explanation’.
Let’s take PH’s other points one by one:
You deny you are a ‘contrarian’. You say this is tantamount to defamation. However, the accepted definition of contrarian is ‘someone who opposes popular opinion’.
On that basis, the basis of English language, your entire career is evidence that you are by definition a contrarian.
PH says the Referendum was a ‘trick’. I am sure if he could use the English language properly in this instance he would see that it was a ‘tactic’, a tactic cynically offered by David Cameron to stop Ukip destroying the Tory vote. It’s called politics. Yes he did not think he would have to go through with it, but that is another story. Surely PH knows what tactics and strategy are in politics, after all he tried to become a Tory MP once.
‘Mr Fake Name’. I use a pseudonym for reasons I would prefer not to go into here. I am perfectly happy to tell you those reasons. Email me. Would you by the way have called George Orwell Mr Fake Name?
Why is a long timetable contemptible? It isn’t. But politics is about working with what you’ve got. The Referendum came along. If you really were so passionate about ‘the long march’ to freedom from the EU, then why didn’t you urge your readers to vote Remain? I can see the headline now: ‘This cheap trick won’t do, so Vote Remain’. Why didn’t you do that? Then you could have said: ‘I know you are probably tired of seeing Eastern European petty criminals in your local pub, but I can offer you nothing but more of the same, until one fine day … ‘
Mr Hitchens' sensitivity to the smallest criticism is remarkable. It seems to be a clear case of someone who can hand it out but can't take it. And heavens, can't he hand it out when he wants to?
PH objects to the word pompous. Well, it’s how that particularly column came across to me. My dictionary defines pompous as ‘affectedly grand, solemn, or self-important’.
Are you quite sure you avoid that tone at all times?
PH says he has not changed his position. I seem to remember you being rather keen on the idea of what sounded very much like a hard Brexit. You now seem to be in favour of a solution that will, in all likelihood, will keep us saturated in unsustainable immigration and with the European Court of Justice still in charge.
When a ‘solution’ becomes clear I hope – on the basis of what you have said in recent posts – you take time to tell your readers your position on it, whether endorsing it or no. Because I predict that once it settles down, if it ever does, you will start stoking resentment against the EU again. After all, you turn in such good copy on the subject.
Posted by: Barwick Green | 08 December 2016 at 09:52 AM
I voted leave.
My Prime Minister and his Chancellor told me many times through the television that leaving meant, leaving the single market.
***PH writes. I find on reflection that I cannot recall this, though I may easily have missed it. When and where did they do so?***
I want to go back to before the free movement of people. This was an added reason to vote leave for me.
The voters were not told this vote was just a mood gauging exercise.
I agree with Dame Louise Caey's report, which was really written for the out of touch elites, as many of us didn't need a report.
I also agreed with the common sense words of Tag Hargey's article in the Mail on the 6th of December.
I would have accepted if the vote had been Remain, but it wasn't. just as I accepted the first vote, but became increasingly frustrated at the ever closer political union and the drawing away of control and powers over the years.
It seems to me the illiberal are the ones who call those of us thick and uneducated, who are using common sense, our life experience and much of that far a way from the political elite,who think they know what's good for us,are the ones stomping their feet and getting into a paddy.
I am a bit confused as I thought PH you weren't going to vote? When your headline said, We crushed the Remainers. Are you included with us leave voters? A change of heart?
***PH notes: Once again, I do not write the headlines on my MoS columns***
Posted by: Mrs.B. | 08 December 2016 at 09:42 AM
Far from being the chest beating, ground thumping Neanderthal that Peter Hitchens envisages, I am merely an Owl observing from afar the snakes in the grass and the sheep following the herd.
Posted by: Martin | 08 December 2016 at 09:39 AM
To read Mr Hitchens article would be to think that the only rage about BREXIT comes from the Leave side. I would suggest he widen his reading to another newspaper, The Guardian. Any article in that paper on BREXIT is followed by at least several hundred and quite often several thousand comments, the bulk of which come from frothing at the mouth, ranting lunatic Remainers. Many of their comments not only defy logic, but show a contempt for democratic processes which are typical for liberal progressives.Many call for Leavers be stripped of their right to vote, some come perilously close to inciting violence. But civil war? Not even a remote possibility. The British haven't done revolution for over 300 years. If they have not revolted over what has been done to Britain since WW2, Brexit will certainly not get them moving.
Posted by: John McCarthy | 08 December 2016 at 01:43 AM
@Martin In Britain revolutionary changes in society as in 1945, 1964 and 1979 are delivered via the ballot box.In the 1980s the Left carried on a massive seriesof Extra -Parliamentary actions against Mrs Thatcher ie The Miners Strike ,CND,Greenham Common etc which got them precisely nowhere.In contrast Nigel Farage and UKIP by targetting Conservative Parliamentary seats helped bring about the Referendum .Street actions such as the Country Side Alliance protest and The March against the Iraq war are in comparison futile and both were ignored by Blair.Basically if you to have to take to the streets you have already lost.
Posted by: Roy Robinson | 07 December 2016 at 09:56 PM
Re: Mr Thomas: The part of my paragraph you conveniently missed out in your hurry to jump to your false assumption is as follows....
"Calls to riots, violence and revolution AREN'T the way forward but I think people should be entitled to put their case forward as forcefully as they can WITHOUT being abusive or violent....It's a shame the author's courage appears to have deserted him at the time when perhaps it was most required"
No need for an apology, but please think about the context of someone's comments to determine what they really mean, not what you wanted them to mean.
Posted by: Martin | 07 December 2016 at 09:54 PM
***PH says: That's quite a charge, even from a person who lacks the courage to tell us who he or she is. What money? What false pretences? ***
Your response to my 8.36 comment. (7/12)
You opine. We can all do that - but when are you going to actually be of any use ? You disappeared in the weeks preceeding the last general election and you advocated not taking part in the referendum.
The 'we' part of the previous article was laughable - that we Brexiters had been overbearing and inconsiderate to Remainers mystifying and a tad offensive, particulary seeing as they have been kicking us at every opportunity.
As of me being a coward. Wrong but irrelevant to my point anyway.
Posted by: Anonymous | 07 December 2016 at 09:22 PM
I've heard he's citing on a beach in Varadero with Tariq Ali, smoking a montecristo and talking about their Marxist roots, in pathfinder bookshop previously of Waterloo, now of Bethnal Green waiting for Owen Jones and the revolution to come...no point the flock getting upset as he was diluted from the start...he's Ribena to you red bull as he's only half British...
Posted by: Theo w | 07 December 2016 at 08:42 PM
Our friend Mr. Thomas's amateur attempt to do a cut and paste job on my use of the term "courageous" personifies the problem at large. To any normal person the use of the word courageous in the context it was used would mean stick to your principles and strongly communicate your views. However, any BNP fanatic's eyes immediately bulge at the use of such a term and they then, in their minds, have the perfect excuse to act on their racist impulses. It's very similar to the Islamic militants who read one verse of the Quran and go in search of a word that they can take completely out of context and misinterpret in order to then justify their next jihad, or terror attack.
Now, on the case of Mr. Hitchens I can appreciate he is doing his job, he has a duty to his employer to conform to some extent with the paper's editorial line but like anyone with vested interests in third-parties, we must always seek to explore people's motives for the views they express, especially when it comes to politics. I think he has been genuine so far, there is no real reason to doubt that he believes in the things he writes although I think he also realises that many of the things that people are hoping will come from leaving the EU won't materialise in reality. Politics is all about people posturing and pigeon holing people as left-wing or right wing but it's possible to have good or bad on either side. To me I don't call myself subject to much at all, except to be a person of honesty, integrity, fairness and equality. Forget arguing what a good man should be. Be one.
Posted by: Martin | 07 December 2016 at 08:13 PM
Martin: "Mr. Hitchen's motive appears to be something slightly different in a religious attempt to crush the Conservative Party."
Mr Hitchens believes in an independent Britain. That's the point.
He is also a Burkean conservative, which accounts for his dislike of the Tory party, which is not a conservative party at all.
Posted by: louiseyvette | 07 December 2016 at 06:06 PM
C Morrison - I thank you for that lengthy and informative comment. I must admit that I hadn't realized in just what a terribly undemocratic country the UK has become. It sounds so awful that l'm surprised you haven't taken Mr Hitchens' advice and emigrated to, well, anywhere. I had thought that the UK was a model of democracy with the mother of parliaments and one of the best legal systems in the world, but obviously I've got it all wrong.
As to the concept of a representative democracy, it's a political system that has worked extremely well in the country where I live and I hope it long continues to do so. The only real danger to it is coming from aggressive ultra-rightists, nationalists and neo-Nazis, aided and abetted by conspiracy theorists who spread deliberate lies in the "social media" and on obscure websites in the hope that ignorant and ill-informed people will believe them.
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 07 December 2016 at 05:40 PM
@ C Morrison
As a democrat, I quite agree with your viewpoint regarding what I would describe as the demonization of "populism" and the simultaneous apotheosis of "democracy".
It is interesting to examine the etymology of these words. Democracy derives from the Greek "demos", meaning people and populism from the Latin "populus", meaning people.
I don't think that a bit of populism tends to do much harm (the Referendum result being a case in point) and believe that the general population's instincts, when not "mediated", are far more often right than wrong. Many of us would have to accept our point of view being overridden if populism were more readily implemented (I would have to accept the reintroduction of the death penalty, for example) but overall a good dose of populism would, I am certain, be beneficial.
Posted by: Mike B | 07 December 2016 at 05:28 PM
Martin
Crumbs, Martin, I seem to have touched a few sore spots.
Where did I say you were going to carry an EDL slogan? I simply used that as an example of how the word 'courage' can be used, or in this case, misused.
Incidentally, amongst the nuggets, I see I'm exhibiting 'extremely right wing philosophy', which might or might not give rise to some extreme surprise here as for many years now I've be dismissed as some poor 'lefty-liberal' who wandered in by mistake!
Whatever, Martin, at least you've given me a bit of a laugh on this rather gloom-and-doom thread.
Posted by: Alan Thomas | 07 December 2016 at 04:55 PM
The Civil War in Oxfordshire was marked by the Battle of Cropredy. Ralph McTell wrote a song, 'Red and Gold', about the event. The story is told in the first person by a witness, who saw 'brother killing brother'. One verse goes:
'All that day and all the next the battle it was raging,
Though when darkness came I slipped away.
But the crying of the dying kept me wakeful and just lying
In my bed until the dawning of the day.'
Let not this happen again.
Posted by: Hilary Paipeti | 07 December 2016 at 04:39 PM
Well said. I think the example of America is well worth noting in this context: there they seem to be conducting politics as a barely disguised civil war by by other means, and that's not a situation anyone should want to occur here.
I think most readers of this blog would agree that Left-ist policies tend to destabilise societies and lead to division, so it's tempting for us to think that we should "fight fire with fire" with extreme positions of our own. But I don't think any of us would enjoy an actual conflagration.
The aftermath of this referendum was really eye-opening, and was the first time I've ever known people to end friendships over a vote. It's overly optimistic to think things couldn't become still more bitter.
Posted by: Edward Nicholas Hamer | 07 December 2016 at 03:33 PM