Alternative Editorial: Five Observations On The UK General Election Debate
Watching the second UK General Election hustings this past week, we made a few observations.
Firstly, that there were more women than men on the stage--yet that didn’t substantially change the familiar combative nature of such election debates. Penny Mordaunt (Conservative) and Angela Rayner (Labour) were like swordsmen: thrusting allegations, parrying defensive blows. Then strangely sheathing their weapons at the end and shaking hands, as if it had, after all, been a rather fun joust.
Given what is at stake, that camaraderie might upset some people. It somewhat played into the accusation that there’s not much between these parties’ politics. Secretly, they’re all in cahoots. Or was it maybe the British stiff upper lip on display, able to take any hurt without registering pain? But without pain – the young might ask - will change ever happen?
A second observation would be that - despite the audience being selected from across the political spectrum – there was strong rejection of Nigel Farage and his claim that this election was going to be about immigration. Instead he was repeatedly met with silence and those opponents who defended immigrants and their role in British life were soundly applauded.
For our readers outside the UK, this applause may seem surprising: our mainstream media is resolute that immigration is the lightning rod for populism here. Their assumption is that Brexit was about racism and that an easy majority don’t want more people arriving. Instead, we heard strong statements in the show from Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and the Green Party that migrants were essential to Britain’s ability to flourish, with a warm reception from the audience.
Of course, since there is no method of hearing directly from people about what might be their complex relationships to immigration we can only guess at what people really want and what their motivations might be. And without any social room for dialogue and deliberation on how we might develop our thinking, in the light of constantly changing facts we will continue to be vulnerable to polarisation and misrepresentation
Thirdly, there was next to no focus on either Brexit or Covid - two game changing events in our lives since the last election. Only the SNP’s Stephen Flynn, representing the only country within the UK that voted Remain, pointed out the massive elephant in the room when discussing reasons for our current economic struggles.
Maybe worse, no-one centred on our involvement in the tragic wars in Ukraine or the Middle East at this time, despite regular protest marches and the student encampments across the UK and beyond. What do these wars mean for our international relations; how do they impact our story of ourselves as an evolving global civilisation? Is it amnesia, or is there so much shame and regret around these ‘events’ that none of the candidates wanted to risk being tarnished by the conversation?
Instead, every one of the candidates went out of their way to ‘never forget’ World War Two. Not only safely in the past but remembered as a victory; celebrated for the bravery of those who were sent to the front lines, and the tragedy of those who sacrificed their lives and limbs to the barbarity of war.
Even so, the energy on the panel was directed much more at point-scoring against Rishi Sunak for abandoning the veterans on their anniversary, in favour of electoral campaigning . Little was made of the Conservative proposal for the return of national service: maybe because it has already proven unpopular with voters.
A fourth feature of these debates: the one question about the environment came from the youngest person given a microphone that day. Asking plaintively whether saving the economy or the planet was more important to each party, she sent the speakers a curve ball. Would they answer her generation of voters – those who have most to lose by the worsening environmental crisis? Or would they have foremost in mind the likely audience to this debate – older and more motivated by wages and taxes?
For the most part the politicians took the opportunity to assure the latter - that there would be no hierarchy between the needs of the economy and the needs of the environment; that they are equally important. Which is tantamount to saying, of course we will save your life – if we can afford to. (And if we can’t, some will be consigned to history as the brave fighters in the age of climate breakdown).
The rationale from Nigel Farage is that the UK only generates 1.8% of global carbon production, so cutting down will make no difference to the bigger picture. He omits to talk about the amount we outsource globally: Britain is the fifth biggest economy in the world and our carbon output reflects that. But Farage is a master of sound bites for an audience constrained by time and attention and is much feared by the impact he will make on the Tory vote.
The Green Party leader, Carla Denyer, currently without a seat in Parliament, made a singular attempt to demonstrate how putting the climate first would benefit the economy, by redesigning our infrastructure to create more jobs. Stephen Flynn was bolder, claiming that, for Scotland there was no need to choose as clean energy was already the clear source of economic growth. Yet neither passed the test the young person set: what matters most? The question is emotional, not strategic.
A fifth observation.
And in this sense she set the scene for the future of politics. As we write, Europe is reeling from election results across the continent that evidence the sharp growth of what is termed the far right. Although each country has a different political landscape within which ‘right’ is defined, each surge has populism in common. Meaning, the right defines itself against the centre or the Left by means of ‘common’ language and emotional triggers.
The cool, dry description of necessary economic and militaristic priorities within current party politics contrasts with the calls for freedom, even when that freedom is poorly articulated. That desire to get away from decisions made routinely on their behalf, by politicians they no longer trust is viscerally felt. In the tv debate, it was Farage who used the language of “uprising” and “revolution”.
This is not to say that the politics of emotion is either inter-connected or coherent. Emotion is not in itself a quality of right-wing voters: all human beings are emotional - as well as biological, psychological and spiritual - entities. It’s important to say too, that emotions are not always strong or reactionary: systems of subtle emotional need are core to our wellbeing.
Yet those politicians on the right are more willing and likely to use emotional vulnerability to swing their voters. Not simply because it’s a tool (although it clearly is that too) – but because they see emotion as constitutive of agency. How we feel makes a difference to how we act: some say it dictates our decisions.
In politics emotional intelligence is critical. Yet it's been a while since we’ve seen a politician that is emotionally literate without being emotionally manipulative, as those on the right tend to be.
When we look at the wider social-cultural landscape, we see plenty of leaders more adept at emotional interaction than those in Parliament. Songwriters that engage us deeply in the trials and tribulations of modern life and our desire to make a mark. Football managers that wax lyrical about how to be a team member, develop your hunger and never accept defeat. Game designers that know how to develop our persistence, resilience, and the power of our imagination. Politicians can only dream of the kinds of following these ‘leaders’ have.
Which is why we situate our politics in society rather than in Parliaments. Our biggest hope is that humans are capable of stewarding the planet, when they self-organise cosmolocally. Meaning, they build structures of participation that radically include the diversity of their communities (and all living things) in ways that answer essential emotional as well as physical needs. As – and when – that takes shape, the job of true representation in Parliament will become effective for the first time.
Until then, let’s continue observing our politicians in their election debates: trying so hard to smile while demonstrating their inability to make any real change to our circumstances. Trying to look authoritative in the face of the abject failures of the past and present. Being interrupted by each other and the chair, when attempting to explain that this is all much more complex than we have time for today.
Come July 4th, we will be voting but – in the absence of visionary, fully human beings on the benches at Westminster - we haven’t quite decided where our votes will go. Have you?