In
February 2017 I wrote a short story: The
Minister’s New Clothes | A completely unbelievable short story. The Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both feature in the tale. The uproar
on Sunday (11th November 2018) over Jeremy Corbyn’s choice of
outerwear, the colour of his tie and his chosen poppy for Remembrance 2018 led
me to reread it. Last year when I posted the story to various pro-Corbyn
Facebook pages some responses focused solely on the Prime Minister’s clothes
and appearance. For me the story was about a government that values the few at
the detriment to the many; the ‘pantomime’ that parliament often descends into;
and the demonisation of those who are defined as ‘other’, as less deserving,
and of a man who is working to challenge this injustice and inequality. Given
the title of my piece I guess it’s clear that my aim was to adapt the original The Emperor’s New Clothes to highlight
these issues and Theresa May’s love of clothes and accessories helped me in
building the ‘story’. So, in my tale clothes, and specifically the ‘cloak of lies’ the
PM is given to wear by those who will do anything to retain their control, their
privilege, at the expense of the many, was for me a metaphor for political
power in Britain. I appreciate that stories can be read at many levels but
regret that my story led to (further) critique of the PM’s appearance and I
received some criticism for this. To clarify my position I am not, and I don’t
think any of us should be, overly concerned with what our politicians wear.
Although, and I appreciate the contradiction here, I do find obvious displays
of wealth and privilege distasteful to say the least. But, what distresses me
more, so much more is the explicit #ConsciousCruelty and #HostileEnvironment embedded within Conservative policy and practice AND the ways
in which they are still able to convince so many people that this is not the
case.
Before
going any further here is the story I wrote last year. I hope you’ll be as
struck as I am by its significance to what happened on the 11th of
September 2018.
|
The Minister’s New Clothes | A completely unbelievable short story
There is a
woman, a minister, the head of a government, well known to all of us who is
extremely fond of new and expensive clothes. So much so that a considerable
amount of the money she earns is spent on dresses, trouser suits, shirts and
jumpers, not to mention very large necklaces and fancy shoes. Now, any woman,
every woman, should be allowed to wear whatever she likes, without censure or
comment, and as the men the woman works with are also well-dressed it is
something of a sexist double-standard to single her out. But, given the
woman’s powerful role, and the fact that many of those she supposedly
represents are doing less than just about managing, that she is rarely seen
in the same over-priced outfit twice seems more than a little tasteless. And
yet, the woman seems oblivious to the impression she is giving, even agreeing
to be featured in various publications to showcase her style and fashion sense.
Although everyone, including the woman and the
ministers who work with her, pretend that the members of the government are
the ones running the country in reality they and their actions are
manipulated by a small number of rich and powerful others; the big business
owners, the media barons and others generally referred to as the 1%. These
people, many of them white, able-bodied men, have greater access to and
control of, both the capitalist means of production and the ring wing
ideological apparatus that is the mainstream media. They are therefore,
responsible not only for the continued exploitation of the many, but also the
ongoing skewed political socialisation of the masses. Such is their hunger
for power and money this small, unrepresentative group will do anything they
can to maintain their position and influence. The women's love of garments
and accessories is valuable to them, in their plan to retain their status as
the privileged few, willing as she is to wear their gift of a cloak woven
together with threads made up of whopping great rancid
lies.
Her responsibility for the policies of the land means
that the woman has to justify her decisions to her government, the ministers
that challenge and oppose her, and more generally to us, the everyday folk in
society. In a time honoured tradition, one afternoon each week the woman is
posed a series of questions by the opposition ministers. Serious issues are
raised and flaws in her plans and practices often highlighted and as such the
event should, one would think, be conducted with solemnity and judged in
terms of the substance of the points that are aired and the answers that are
given (or not). Sadly though over the years this encounter has become more
like a pantomime than a parliamentary debate with the jeerers and smearers,
jesters and charlatans attempting to drown out the sincere interrogation. 'Oh
Yes It Is', and 'Oh No It Isn't', are common taunts and given that some on
the opposite benches seem unclear to whom their loyalty should lie, 'S/He's
Behind You', is increasingly shouted in warning to the man who asks the
lion's share of the questions. The woman herself, has little respect for the
questions or for those that ask them and leads her ministers in insulting and
abusing the opposition. The harshest and most vitriolic comments are reserved
for the key questioner, a man who cares little about his own presentation of
self, little about the clothes he wears, except that is for his collection of
ties in deepest red. So warped has the system become that the nastier, more
aggressive, more personal, more insulting the attack, and the thicker the
woman's cloak of lies becomes, the more support she is given from those that
control her, reflected in the representation of her by the 1% funded media.
Thus, despite the woman's obvious lack of compassion for the many, coupled
with much evidence of her bad judgements in terms of present national crises
and future local and global concerns, her own particular toxic charisma
becomes stronger and more positive in mainstream narratives.
The cloak, unlike the woman's other clothes, is
not made of luxurious cloth in vibrant colours. Rather it is a dark
despicable thing, dripping in filthy falsehood, greasy from backroom
bargaining and grimy deals. Yet, the cloak remains invisible to many people
who are unable to see it and the woman who wears it in all their true horror.
Terrifyingly this means that the woman is trusted with what she ought not to
be and believed even when it should be obvious that her words are nothing but
hollow spin. On the few occasions when the cloak slips and the woman and her
ministers are exposed for what they truly are the woman, aided again by the
forces that protect her, creates a diversion, a moral panic, in order to
deflect attention away from both her words and her actions. Once again the
focus is often the man who leads the opposition; his arguments for peace
claimed as both unsafe and unpatriotic, his efforts for those most vulnerable
and alienated defined as old fashioned and unworkable. Additionally, (and yet
more evidence that the woman's claim that she is working for a shared society
for all is just another meaningless sound bite) attention is also diverted
towards those whose identities, experiences, life-chances and choices do not
fit that of the so-called, narrowly defined ideal type. Through the use of
simplistic stereotypes just about everyone is labelled as other, stigmatised
as abnormal and or dangerous, defined as undeserving. Those affected include
(not least): the employed who fight for their rights, the unemployed for
their drain on the system, the homeless for littering the streets; the old
for their outdated views and lack of sympathy for the young, the young for
their weakness and lack of resilience, those at midlife for their lack of
care and attention for both the old and the young; the experts for their
pomposity; anyone from man or woman in the street (or online) to celebrity
who dares to offer a critique. But perhaps the greatest identification and
demonisation of otherhood is directed at those defined as unworthy stranger;
the immigrant and the refugee. We are told again and again that these people
are simultaneously taking all our jobs and using up all our resources when in
actuality considerations of a day without them clearly shows their invaluable
input into the healthy, safe, effective daily lives of all. So neighbour
is pitted against neighbour and the tension and fear that this encourages
successfully shifts the responsibility away from those who most deserve it.
It is not the woman, the government, or the 1%, who take the blame for the
inequalities and injustices in society but rather similar others who are
equally, if not more, oppressed, powerless and vulnerable.
There are some, thankfully, who are able to see
the cloak, the woman, and her supporters, for what they are. There are some,
to whom we should all be grateful, who are working hard to ensure that more
of us can see this too. There are some, despite continued misrepresentation
and abuse, who continue to challenge fear and hate and insist on the need for
hope and love.
There are some . . .
|
Back to Remembrance 2018. Of course Sunday was not by any means the
first time that the Leader of the Opposition has been criticised either for his
appearance or his supposed lack of patriotism. I’m sure there is no need to go
into detail although it is interesting to reflect on how, and possibly why,
these issues collided (yet again) last weekend. It is well known, by those who
look at little further than the mainstream media outlets that Jeremy Corbyn practices
‘Lest we forget’ differently to many
other politicians. Just a little research uncovers pictures and stories of him
meeting with veterans after the main event (rather than attending lunch with
dignitaries) and attending and speaking at a Remembrance events in his own Islington
constituency as he has done for many years. And yet year after year the focus
is on his appearance – from his ‘poorly knotted tie’ to his ‘scruffy coat’ –
and his so-called lack of respect – ‘he did a jig on the way to the Cenotaph’
(no he did not and the papers that reported this had to retract) to ‘he’s
wearing such a tiny poppy’.
On Sunday, the Labour Party, and Mr Corbyn himself, made it clear that remembering is not enough:
|
@UKLabour
Our veterans deserve security when their time in service ends:
Here’s our pledge to veterans:
Proper mental health services to treat PTSD
And end to rough sleeping
Free education, retraining, and more apprenticeships
#RemembranceDay2018
|
|
@JeremyCorbyn
As we remember the fallen, let's truly honour the words
'never again'.
|
|
@JeremyCorbyn:
On Remembrance Sunday, we commemorate all those killed in war as we
strive for a world of peace. We must honour our commitments to those who
served in our armed forces.
|
There is
an estimated 13,000 homeless veterans (see @TheProleStar
for an article and twitter thread focusing on ‘The Known Soldier’ (i.e. just
some of veterans that have died whilst sleeping rough)). There are also obvious
deficiencies in the health, work, educational and financial support (for this
group and many others). Given this it is clear that the ‘cloak woven together with threads made up of whopping great rancid lies’ is still protecting the Prime Minister and her government if the focus
on the day (from much of the MSM, from some politicians, and others active on
social media) is not #LaboursVisionForBritain but Jeremy Corbyn’s clothes and
his poppy. I must admit there are times when I wish that Mr Corbyn had a
different, a slightly sharper, awareness of what the sociologist Erving Goffman
(1959) called ‘presentation of self’ for it might make things easier for him.
But, would I trade this imperfect (for aren’t we all), occasionally socially
gauche, but brave and incredibly resourceful and resilient man, who is full to
the brim of empathy for others and whose job is clearly a vocation with the at
best plastic careerist, at worst disconnected, self-serving and cruel
alternatives on both sides of the House? Absolutely, definitely not.
 |
| Mr Corbyn righly yawning at yet another inaccurate attack |
As I have
written previously:
…. I don't consider myself to be
part of a cult. Neither do I think that I am deluded or stupid or any of the
other things I and similar others have been called in recent months. What I do
passionately believe, with reference to my own life experience to date - as
a sometime carer and as someone who has needed professional (as patient) and
personal (as daughter, wife, friend) care from others, as a student, a teacher,
a researcher, a volunteer, a women and a citizen - is that
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is our best hope, our only hope of a decent future for
all.
There
was, happily, much support for Mr Corbyn, and for Labour this last Sunday. Some
folk challenged and corrected the fabrications and/or commented on the irrelevance
of the LOTO's clothes:
|
@silverrich39
(Richard O’Neill):
I’m a 79 year old ex army ‘war pensioner’. And I don’t give a flying
toss what he wore. He’s the only politician I know who would actually protect
ex-service personnel, unlike the Torries who create their problems.
|
Others
focussed attention on @UKLabour’s pledge for veterans and many pointed out yet
another irony within the outrage. Harry Lesley Smith, an activist and 95 year
old World War II veteran tweeted:
|
@Harryslaststand:
Make no mistake the greatest disrespect to our veterans doesn’t come
from the size of the poppy warn (sic) on the lapel but by those who enable
arms to be sold into war zones not for our protection but for the greed of
the 1% #JeremyCorbyn #RemembranceDay2018
|
Michael Rosen (@MichaelRosenYes)
wrote a poem which included the following:
It’s not the coat they hate.
That’s not really their cause
What gets up all their noses?
He opposes all the wars.
See here for the rest:
(I’d
recommend everyone also read Jon Wight’s piece on some of the contradictions
(to say the least) of Remembrance Day:
https://medium.com/@JohnWight1/remembrance-day-and-the-truths-that-dare-not-speak-their-name-4a943b3ed1b6)
Sunday’s
response (from all sides) to Mr Corbyn’s appearance at the Cenotaph and his,
and his Party’s, ‘Lest we forget’
focus encapsulates, I think, the relevance of The Minister’s New Clothes to political understanding in Britain (and
elsewhere) in 2018. We are told again and again and again that the Conservative
government is dedicated to correct the ‘burning
injustices’ of society and that a Corbyn-led government would be a threat
to us all both in terms of domestic policy and international affairs. And
sadly, just like those that lined the streets that the Emperor in the original
‘New Clothes’ tale paraded along, there are many who, despite what they see
before them, believe this twisted, manufactured ‘truth’. But, there are others
– politicians, activists (both on the streets and online), some journalists –
who like the boy in the tale who spoke up about the nakedness of the Emperor,
call this lie out for what it is.
A few
weekends ago there was another media outrage. This time about an anonymous
Conservative MP who drew on violent language to describe Theresa May’s
precarious hold on her position as PM and leader of the Conservative Party. The
Labour MP Angela Rayner tweeted:
|
Tories told to report 'vile' MPs to POLICE after
they boast of knifing&hanging Theresa May. I am genuinely shocked MPs
would say such things given the toxic atmosphere on social media, how can we
as MPs ask for acceptable behaviour&standards from others?
|
I agreed
with Ms Rayner and with many others who made similar points. Indeed, I tweeted
@brandonlewis (chairman of the Conservative Party responsible for the Party’s ‘Respect
Pledge’) three times to ask for his
response. Unsurprisingly I received no reply. (There are many more examples to
show that this pledge is less than worthless. Maybe I’ll write of those another
day.)
And yet:
|
Double Standards:
• One MP who threatened to "knife"
Corbyn has condemned the use of that language against Theresa May.
• One Journalist who instructed us to "kill
Jezza" has condemned the use of that language against Theresa May.
|
Yes
indeed which perhaps explains why one twitter user felt it acceptable to write
of Mr Corbyn; ‘he should be in a concrete
overcoat’ on Sunday 11th November.
Once
final example to demonstrate the ways in which the MSM acts as a cloak to
manipulate our perception of what is and what is not (as reported by @skwarkbox).
Following the recent Pittsburgh synagogue attack various news stations and
papers made ‘connections’ between the atrocity and concerns of antisemitism in
the Labour Party. See this from Harriet Sherwood in The Guardian:
|
Theresa May, the UK prime minister, tweeted her
deep shock at “this sickening and cowardly act”.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Leader, who has been
accused of allowing antisemitism to take root in the party, tweeted: “My
thoughts are with those killed or injured in this horrific act of antisemitic
violence, and with their loved ones. We must stand together against hate and
terror,”
|
As Skwarkbox noted there was: ‘[n]o mention of the Tories’ proven and
recorded mass support in the European Parliament for racist, antisemitic
Hungarian premier . . . but, as ever Corbyn
is fair game for criticism and attack
One of the first pieces
I wrote when my writing turned more (Party) political in the summer of 2016 was
another short story entitled Sticks and Stones
http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.com/2016/08/sticks-and-stones-short-story.html.
It ends:
The end of this story is yet to be told. The man
and the people who accept and help to promote what he stands for remain under
attack. The often confused and confusing negative stories continue to fester.
But the resistance of many continues also. Although the kingdom is in many ways
rotten, and there is a real danger that things could get even worse, there is
also much hope for a better world. Many more people believe in fighting for a
more positive future. Many more people believe in the power of community and
the value of people powered politics. What is clear is that whatever happens
next things will never be the same again.
Yup….
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation
of Self in Everyday Life Anchor books
No comments:
Post a Comment