By Daviemoo
I find myself wondering of late, how truly stupid people are finding their way into comfortable political jobs, and how these stupid people are somehow associated with the class they continue to betray. Figures linked closely to family businesses are touted as titans of the working class who broke into politics against the odds when the simple truth is: between nepotism and money, you may not be able to buy happiness but you appear to be able to buy your way into political seats.
Utterly foolish people like Jonathan Gullis, Nadine Dorries or, to take an American example, Marjorie Taylor-Greene are all unsuited to politics.
Many see these appointments as a win for the working class, finally represented by people who talk like them: those people are fools. Gullis and Dorries are paid huge sums and reportedly do nothing to help their constituencies: Dorries has all but abandoned politics for a vacuous media role. Taylor-Greene was handed a business that failed and somehow managed to bully her way into her seat.
I read an account recently from a conservative man who said he felt “represented” by Gullis. When I asked what aspects of himself Gullis represented, he said “he says it like it is”. I asked him exactly what he feels he can’t say that Gullis does, to which he responded “stuff about immigration”. With this, I asked why he feels immigration is the only problem in the UK, and was told “ethnic replacement is a big issue”. I queried this: what is ethnic replacement, and how does it work?
Apparently, foreign people coming to the UK, and I quote, “dilutes the blood of the population”.
I did try to explain to this man that we aren’t Ribena and surely if someone comes to the UK and has children with an English person then that person’s children are English. He said no: that the foreign blood somehow devours the British, like some sort of insidious virus.
I then replied that if it was that easy to wipe out British blood maybe we aren’t that powerful, and that considering we invaded every single continent at one time or another in history isn’t all blood technically British because our ancestors pillaged almost every place they could? He then, unsurprisingly, got rude and wouldn’t continue to talk with me.
The problem I have with discussing… well, anything, with people who feel represented by this current iteration of the Conservative Party is that, so often, I have the same responses. “I’d never vote labour; they’re terrible”. When I inquire as to why, they talk about socialism: I ask them which policies are socialist and they fail to respond with a real answer. There is no socialist option in the UK because British people have a true aversion to socialism in any form despite our health system being fundamentally socialist at its core. But I want, genuinely, to understand in good faith what these people feel is represented of them by people like Gullis, Fabricant, Dorries, even Johnson. How has this vast intake of politicians who have utterly decimated our political discourse somehow come to represent the working class to people who ARE the working class?
There is a dangerous argument to make about representation: that those who really do the jobs of medical professionals: doctors, nurses, AHPs, should have direct oversight of political jobs relating to health. If you specialised into medicine you know well how the NHS works, but do you know how the levers of politics do? But this pales into the larger issue of politics in the UK currently being driven by those who don’t even understand honesty and decency. When it comes to actual stakeholders, oversight committees are long overdue for the British government, bodies who advise them directly on the real on the ground issues and have the ability to direct policy, whose actual roles are built into their normal day jobs. But this issue comes secondary to having government figures who simply cant be honest or who are incapable of political jobs.
A worse aspect of British politics is the ironic appointment of scum figures whose entire ethos is the opposite of what their role entails.
Kemi Badenoch is a horrendous appointment to any position in government. Her work as brexit opportunities minister or whatever other ridiculous title obfuscates her true role as prevaricating damage hider is proof enough: but look deeper at her appointment to women and equalities: Badenoch is hubristic enough to have ignored multiple studies that show that granting women time off to deal with severe periods or menopause is beneficial and gives equity, considering men would no doubt take time away from work if they suffered some of the same symptoms: not all, but some. Badenoch also praised the statements from SNP hopeful Kate Forbes around gay marriage, stating she was “proud” Forbes stood by her convictions: Badenoch fails to realise the obvious: that holding these beliefs is protected in law but using them as a driver for votes or as a stick to beat others with is not, nor should it be.
And if we want further proof of the appointment of awful figures who stand in opposition to the letter of their job description, look at the very role of prime minister! Rishi Sunak, one of the richest men in the country is now in the top job. But why? What’s his area of expertise. The man was a banker, right around the time the banks melted down the world’s economy and sent us into recession. He’s so dishonest he kept he and his wife’s immigration status marked wrongly so they paid less tax. His fortune comes from his wife’s company, a company that still operates in Russia as they illegally invade and wage war on Ukraine. Now twice issued FPN’s he is a prime minister who doesn’t follow the law, and a man who seems to feel he can commit crimes that come with a price tag specifically because he can afford it.
Politics as a whole is a swirling mass of confusion, from the discourse itself to its figures. Immigration into the UK isn’t a huge problem as it’s claimed. I read yesterday an armchair immigration expert saying that immigration isn’t the problem, crime is. How does one debate that? Should all immigration be stopped because of the chance of crime? What about the net benefits of immigration: No worker shortages, more hands on deck?
If you want to pivot to “they take money out of the economy” I quickly direct you to the oft hated billionaire businessmen who specifically remove money from the British economy and stash it in accounts overseas to avoid paying into our systems.
So I ask myself: is the issue confusing, are the people who claim to be represented by unrepentant thugs like Gullis and 30p Lee really more complex: or are they also reaching for the base issue, the wrong issue we all know is there and they’re angry they’ve been called out on it? With a media which so deeply represents right wing interests, excuses are often handed to them as to why they “really” support the conservatives.
the biggest issue I find, is that people like MTG who were handed money and influence on a plate by relatives are somehow seen as key representatives of the working class when she is anything but and, like her ridiculous predecessor Trump, had money thrown at her and still failed and yet still worked her way up. She doesn’t represent or care about working class issues any more than Braverman or any of the other British figures whose entire pathos is to point the finger of blame at others for the erosion of our ways of life, as they hold a blowtorch to it.
I wish I could help the people who claim so fervently to be represented by these people understand that half of them would light their cigars off of our smouldering bodies: but I can’t connect on any level to people who think spewing mindless nonsense about immigration or gender or mathematics in school are the issue when the true issue is: shitty politicians.
Politically Enraged 