A change in the voting system might help, but it might not (cf Israel, Germany, The Netherlands).
What we really need are lobby groups for young people, workers and other disadvantaged groups). In the 1980s and 90s there was much talk of "pensioner poverty" (which if course still exists), and policy very much shifted to protecting pensioners & property owners (who unsurprisingly are older) - triple lock, free travel, ISAs, pension "freedom", council tax.
30 years later these accumulated gains have been very much at the expense of young people as you quite rightly identify.
If I remember, there was a candidate in 2017 who offered to reverse these policies and promote some in favour of younger people and workers who did very well tho not well enough. One Jeremy Corbyn. Personally, I was not a fan of his, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
What young people need is to organise. Put pressure on their MPs. It really should be easy - there are loads in universities where there is a high concentration of young voters. It's not like you're trying to find a herd of unicorns.
I'd give the same advice to any marginalised group. Organise. Make your case. Join or start a political party.
If this sounds like pie in the sky, then the real question is: why are young people so unwilling to push their own interests, especially when they seem so adept at pushing those of marginalised communities in other countries?
Completely agree, Matt. As you indicate, it's easier said than done but I do take some hope from what we're seeing on that front in the US now. Many communities doing this stuff for themselves, or with a very light touch from the usual campaign orgs.
Deeply concerning, indeed. But will Westminster act upon this information? Or will it allow the ghastly Farage and his equally ghastly entourage take over? Churchill will be rotating in his grave!
Firstly, thank you for your comment (and the restack!), Nigel. I, of course, sincerely hope they will act upon this information. As I highlight in my reference to housing, healthcare, environment, education, etc - there are clearly different policies this current government could adopt to win over the support of young people, and divert them from the empty promises of authoritarianism and Reform UK - to an extent.
However, as I conclude, until we make this fundamental improvement to our democracy, and overhaul the way we elect our MPs - faith in our politics and politicians will continue to diminish, as governments will continue to win elections, and then tune out to the concerns of the British people - because they can.
Unless the current government sees the light over PR, I fear we are heading towards a Reform UK government and a Farage premiership. And if he performs as I believe he would, faith in democracy would suffer even more. And then what’s the answer? Rupert Lowe? Tommy Robinson? Now THAT is a truly ghastly thought.
The government simply has to get this right - let’s hope it does. Thanks again for your comment and restack, Nigel - I hope to see you on the next one!
There is little sign yet that they will, Nigel...but we will be nudging them gently as the Elections Bill makes its way through Parliament, so maybe they will see the light.
We do experience these inflection points don't we? Where we could go one of two ways? For example, if you read Alan Moore's introduction to V for Vendetta, written in 1988, you will see an uncanny similarity to our current situation:
"…the tabloid press are circulating the idea of concentration camps for persons with AIDS. The new riot police wear black visors, as do their horses, and their vans have rotating video cameras mounted on top. The government has expressed a desire to eradicate homosexuality, even as an abstract concept, and one can only speculate as to which minority will be the next legislated against."
Moore also says:
"Naiveté can also be detected in my supposition that it would take something as melodramatic as a near-miss nuclear conflict to nudge England towards fascism."
When I read Moore's words I feel hope and despair in equal mesure; despair because we have somehow managed to make the same mistakes again, and hope because we have pulled ourselves back from the brink before; and can do so again.
-
The government has expressed that the distinction between sex and gender is a 'contested belief', and desire to eradicate trans identities, even as abstract concepts. The police vans have facial recognition cameras and are deployed at sports games and carnivals. The tabloid press are circulating the idea that housing asylum seekers in our town centres is a threat to the safety of women and children, and it is only a matter of time before they suggest swapping 'migrant hotels' for concentration camps.
Thanks for this comment, Oliver. You make a point that really resonates with me.
Much of my work with Open Britain and Fair Vote UK leaves me feeling a great deal of despair. Like you, I can see the direction of travel and can clearly see the actual and potential dangers ahead, and yet most of the people we talk to outside our immediate network are - quite understandably - too busy dealing with the pressures of everyday life to see it for themselves. (Part of the reason we created Ugly Politix was to provide those who are not immersed in this stuff on a daily basis with a hopefully ‘easy access’ way of staying informed.)
(As an aside, have you seen Asif Kapadia’s film ‘2073’? It paints a sobering picture of how the issues you raise are being used by authoritarian regimes right now elsewhere in the world and shows how easy it would be for our country to follow suit. The style and format is a little unusual and takes a bit of getting used to but I know Asif and he is passionate about this stuff and, I think, through ‘2073’, has done an excellent job shining a light on this area.)
But I also find moments of great hope. When we raise these issues through our supporter emails, our Ugly Politix Substacks, or the interviews we do with people on the street, the responses we get largely feed my hope. The majority of people are with us. The problem is that we have a media and a voting system that amplifies the voices of the minority who DON’T share our values and suppresses our voices. But we’re working on that!
As you say, we have pulled ourselves back from the brink before and I have faith that the overwhelming majority of British people are not instinctively aligned with these authoritarian values. If we have done it before, we can do it again.
I too am shocked by the polling. If I was talking to someone who informed me that he, “would prefer an authoritarian system of government to one which acts within the democratic framework”, I would take a deep breath and ask him some questions.
I would ask him if he had thought this through?
I would suggest that if something is working badly it is natural to look for something better.
I would ask if he agreed that criticising is a lot easier than doing.
I would ask him if he had been attracted by someone criticising the government or someone putting forward positive alternatives?
And here is the crunch question:
What will you do if the strong authoritarian leader turns out to be a monster like Putin or Kim Jong Un of North Korea? You can’t vote him out at the next General Election!
I don’t want to be boring and obvious but the ultimate virtue in democracy, that often is far from perfect, is that when it becomes obvious that the government is doing a bad job the public can turf them out. That virtue must never be forgotten.
As many of us have been pressing for, the time has come to bring in P.R. for ALL elections. As it stands a split vote could let in the most horrific right wing extremism, as has been shown with 'tory' starmer. He has NO mandate any more that farrago's deform shower or the neo nazis of the tory party.
So PR then? Complete PR also gives power to extreme minorities, think of the influence of the extreme right in Israel right now, when the huge majority of citizens do not agree with the government's actions.
There are the other problems with PR seen elsewhere and mentioned by other commentators.
So what then?
A suggestion is to look for a system where the majority of citizens get the government it wants and not the one it doesn't want.
So instead of a PR system where a doctrine supported by one in 600 people gets a voice in parliament and may even hold the balance of power, the most obnoxious do not get a look in.
Such a system is a single transferable vote system, which at least should deliver MPs that are most people's first second or third choice.
PR is not a system per se, rather a class or family of systems with proportionality at their heart. STV is one of the main systems within that family (one with a lot of existing support, as it happens).
Open Britain’s position (in line with the APPG for Fair Elections) is that STV should be evaluated alongside all the other forms of PR (and FPTP) by an independent National Commission on Electoral Reform (NCER). If an NCER is set up, you (and everyone else) would have an opportunity to make the case for your preferred system and have it considered (rigorously and without political bias) as part of the process.
Why can we not have the electoral system debate publicly now? "Shut up and wait for this formal process that we might not achieve and might not make the conclusions you want" is no way to build a movement.
People could get really excited and energised about the ability to "rank the fascists last", in a way they cannot get excited about "proportional representation" when that would currently cause Reform UK to be the largest party.
I feel like everyone in the electoral reform movement has conspired to cut their own legs off.
Hi Sprint. Who is saying we need to wait to have that conversation? Not me. Not Open Britain. Not the APPG. The sooner we have a national-scale debate on this issue, the better. (And I welcome SfPR’s efforts in this regard.)
What we need to keep in mind is that talking and actually securing change are two different things. All too often, great work is done on the former and yet the latter remains frustratingly elusive. The thinking behind the NCER is focussed on maximising the chances of getting both. This isn’t an ‘either/or’ situation…we need both.
I’d love for electoral reform to be a so-called ‘doorstep issue’ right now and will support any sensible efforts in that direction. But I don’t want to march everyone up a very steep hill and then have to march them back down again in disappointment . Taking into account how change is ACTUALLY achieved in this country - which, sadly, is very different to how many people THINK it is achieved - the NCER represents our best opportunity of avoiding that. (You and others may disagree, obviously.)
Therefore, it follows that 67% of young people do NOT favour authoritarianism. Clearly, the latter are the ones who have actually GAINED from their educational studies. I can remember from my school days of 70 years ago, there was a similar fascination with the deeds of the nazis in WW2 but it did NOT mean we favoured the setting up of a dictatorship under the likes of farrago the fascist and his sturmtruppen !
Fair point, Alan. I guess the key difference now is that a party on 30% (some say less than that) can realistically get itself into government with two-thirds of the seats in the Commons...and then, essentially, do whatever they like on the (false) claim that they have a mandate from the people. That's a much more direct route from theory to practice than I think we've ever had before.
It looks to me that the people polled did not understand the word 'some' (in "even if it meant sacrificing some democratic freedoms"). Authoritarian rule means no democratic freedoms -- see Putin and other dictators. Trump is busy dismantling the American constitution, as another example.
The question should actually have been posed as "sacrificing all our democratic freedoms". I think it would then have got a lower percentage of support.
That doesn't stop the headlines of course. But it is important not to play into the hands of people who do genuinely want authoritarian government, Farage among them. The poll was flawed, its basis is faulty and that is at least part of the message in response to it.
This is all fair, John. I think specific examples of rights they would lose would have focussed their minds in a different way. I think the TUC did this well a few months ago when they asked people on the street questions like, "Do you think it would ok for your boss to sack you without giving a reason?" or "Should your boss be able to cut your holiday allowance on a whim?" (I'm not sure those were the exact questions but they were in that vein.) The responses were all very clear...no ambiguity. And those who were Farage supporters were astonished to find out that he had that week voted against legislation to bolster those sorts of rights...a clear sign of the priorities he would pursue if he ever got into Number 10.
I think it also backs up the general point that surveys are slanted. And we do all know that in the back of our minds. Of course I approve of the slant in this one :-)
Thanks for your comment, Ruth. You raise a fair point regarding the transparency of donations to think tanks.
However, in this instance, I do not believe this is relevant to the data they have published. Firstly, whatever your thoughts on the ASI, it remains a reputable source of information, collecting data from a broad and representative group of British society.
Secondly, in response to the report, Emma Schubart, Data and Insights Manager at the ASI, says the findings should “ring alarm balls” and states “urgent action is needed to restore faith in the system”. I think this is proof enough that, in this instance, the ASI is not seeking to use this data to push any agenda in favour authoritarianism or Reform UK.
Here is the full report (with those quotes) for your perusal.
Firstly, you only need to dig a little into Schubart to see what a divisionist, anti immigration and pro Israel mouthpiece she is, second it's not your decision to decide what you think is relevant to the reader.
Now I see what’s irritating you. I would say a few things in response.
First, I agree with the general thrust of the point you make - it is, of course, a matter of paramount importance that we do not mislead our readers or leave material facts out of a piece. But, within that, there is the ’golden rule’ of all communications - knowing your audience. The Ugly Politix audience is, in the main, engaged and informed on the matters we talk about. It is unlikely they do not already know the ASI and what it stands for. As this already long piece was not focussed on them as an organisation, it is therefore a reasonable editorial decision not to get into that. And, if we did, where would we stop? The description you gave of them? A list of their directors? Work history of each? A list of funders? Accounts for the last 12 months? 24 months? Longer? Publishing Substacks - as opposed to, say, a Wikipedia page - involves making trade-off decisions about information and focus. In my view, our judgement was right on this one, given the audience we have.
Second, the implication of what you’re saying is that we should have dismissed this report because of its source, that we should not have published the piece and missed the opportunity to shine a light on a potentially existential issue for UK democracy (my organisation’s sole concern). That, to my mind, would be a very strange decision indeed. As is clear from the piece, action is desperately needed right now if we are to avoid a rapid slide into the kind of authoritarian regime we currently see in the States. The ‘left’ of British politics very often ties itself up in knots and undermines its ability to achieve its objectives by taking an overly puritanical approach. At Open Britain, we prefer to take a clear-eyed view of any evidence that comes our way and use it in any way we can to raise these important issues without, of course, boosting the very forces we are fighting.
Which takes me to my third point. Your comment implies that you think Open Britain (or specifically our Ugly Politix publication) intends to act as a mouthpiece for the kind of issues the ASI advocates or that we are naively doing so. Anyone who reads Ugly Politix will be in no doubt about where we stand on that front. Open Britain and Fair Vote UK (the other organisation I work for) established and are driving the APPG for Fair Election mentioned in the piece, now the largest and arguably the most active APPG in Parliament, precisely and explicitly to secure a fair electoral system where all voices are heard, to take ‘dark money’ out of British politics, and to combat disinformation in public discourse. Right-wing voices have a legitimate place in the democratic debate. What they do NOT have is the right to use the enormous wealth they tend to have access to, and the media platform that goes with that, to exploit the weaknesses in our system to secure a level of power over us that the popularity of their ideas does not warrant. That is precisely what Open Britain and Fair Vote UK spend everyday trying to fix. If, knowing that, you do not see that we are on your side, I’m afraid I’m lost.
I’m sorry to hit you with such a long reply but you raised a point - and used a tone - that often comes up in our work, and that I find somewhat depressing. Let us all expend our energy on finding ways to work together, ignoring minor and immaterial irritations, and support each other in the important fight against these forces (who, as you will know, have no such qualms).
Thank you for reading Ugly Politix and for taking the time to give us your thoughts. I hope I have given you a clearer understanding of ours.
It is important that the ASI has an agenda. All surveys are slanted and depend on the agenda of the organisation which commissioned them. Sometimes it is unconscious bias, of course.
I think I acknowledged that in my long reply, John. They definitely do. And most of our audience probably knows that. But what material difference would an expansion of that point make to the core message of the article? And should we also have dismissed similar research findings by Channel 4 News a few months back? Whoever does the research, the undeniable fact is that a significant number of young people are losing faith in democracy because it is not delivering for them. Rationally, they are looking around for something that promises to fix that...and, sadly, the thing that is doing that most effectively right now is the Farage show. I am watching with interest to see whether developments in the Corbyn/Sultana space are going to change that.
Humans,are not really in charge down here. We are in end times and Satan is taking more and more control as we approach the tribulation. Trump is the main anti-Christ and pushing the Satanic agenda to separate all he can from God, espescially Christians, this is why he pushes separatist, misogynistic, racist, povertist, transphobic, linguistist, geographist, ... agendas.
A change in the voting system might help, but it might not (cf Israel, Germany, The Netherlands).
What we really need are lobby groups for young people, workers and other disadvantaged groups). In the 1980s and 90s there was much talk of "pensioner poverty" (which if course still exists), and policy very much shifted to protecting pensioners & property owners (who unsurprisingly are older) - triple lock, free travel, ISAs, pension "freedom", council tax.
30 years later these accumulated gains have been very much at the expense of young people as you quite rightly identify.
If I remember, there was a candidate in 2017 who offered to reverse these policies and promote some in favour of younger people and workers who did very well tho not well enough. One Jeremy Corbyn. Personally, I was not a fan of his, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
What young people need is to organise. Put pressure on their MPs. It really should be easy - there are loads in universities where there is a high concentration of young voters. It's not like you're trying to find a herd of unicorns.
I'd give the same advice to any marginalised group. Organise. Make your case. Join or start a political party.
If this sounds like pie in the sky, then the real question is: why are young people so unwilling to push their own interests, especially when they seem so adept at pushing those of marginalised communities in other countries?
Completely agree, Matt. As you indicate, it's easier said than done but I do take some hope from what we're seeing on that front in the US now. Many communities doing this stuff for themselves, or with a very light touch from the usual campaign orgs.
Deeply concerning, indeed. But will Westminster act upon this information? Or will it allow the ghastly Farage and his equally ghastly entourage take over? Churchill will be rotating in his grave!
Firstly, thank you for your comment (and the restack!), Nigel. I, of course, sincerely hope they will act upon this information. As I highlight in my reference to housing, healthcare, environment, education, etc - there are clearly different policies this current government could adopt to win over the support of young people, and divert them from the empty promises of authoritarianism and Reform UK - to an extent.
However, as I conclude, until we make this fundamental improvement to our democracy, and overhaul the way we elect our MPs - faith in our politics and politicians will continue to diminish, as governments will continue to win elections, and then tune out to the concerns of the British people - because they can.
Unless the current government sees the light over PR, I fear we are heading towards a Reform UK government and a Farage premiership. And if he performs as I believe he would, faith in democracy would suffer even more. And then what’s the answer? Rupert Lowe? Tommy Robinson? Now THAT is a truly ghastly thought.
The government simply has to get this right - let’s hope it does. Thanks again for your comment and restack, Nigel - I hope to see you on the next one!
There is little sign yet that they will, Nigel...but we will be nudging them gently as the Elections Bill makes its way through Parliament, so maybe they will see the light.
We do experience these inflection points don't we? Where we could go one of two ways? For example, if you read Alan Moore's introduction to V for Vendetta, written in 1988, you will see an uncanny similarity to our current situation:
"…the tabloid press are circulating the idea of concentration camps for persons with AIDS. The new riot police wear black visors, as do their horses, and their vans have rotating video cameras mounted on top. The government has expressed a desire to eradicate homosexuality, even as an abstract concept, and one can only speculate as to which minority will be the next legislated against."
Moore also says:
"Naiveté can also be detected in my supposition that it would take something as melodramatic as a near-miss nuclear conflict to nudge England towards fascism."
When I read Moore's words I feel hope and despair in equal mesure; despair because we have somehow managed to make the same mistakes again, and hope because we have pulled ourselves back from the brink before; and can do so again.
-
The government has expressed that the distinction between sex and gender is a 'contested belief', and desire to eradicate trans identities, even as abstract concepts. The police vans have facial recognition cameras and are deployed at sports games and carnivals. The tabloid press are circulating the idea that housing asylum seekers in our town centres is a threat to the safety of women and children, and it is only a matter of time before they suggest swapping 'migrant hotels' for concentration camps.
Thanks for this comment, Oliver. You make a point that really resonates with me.
Much of my work with Open Britain and Fair Vote UK leaves me feeling a great deal of despair. Like you, I can see the direction of travel and can clearly see the actual and potential dangers ahead, and yet most of the people we talk to outside our immediate network are - quite understandably - too busy dealing with the pressures of everyday life to see it for themselves. (Part of the reason we created Ugly Politix was to provide those who are not immersed in this stuff on a daily basis with a hopefully ‘easy access’ way of staying informed.)
(As an aside, have you seen Asif Kapadia’s film ‘2073’? It paints a sobering picture of how the issues you raise are being used by authoritarian regimes right now elsewhere in the world and shows how easy it would be for our country to follow suit. The style and format is a little unusual and takes a bit of getting used to but I know Asif and he is passionate about this stuff and, I think, through ‘2073’, has done an excellent job shining a light on this area.)
But I also find moments of great hope. When we raise these issues through our supporter emails, our Ugly Politix Substacks, or the interviews we do with people on the street, the responses we get largely feed my hope. The majority of people are with us. The problem is that we have a media and a voting system that amplifies the voices of the minority who DON’T share our values and suppresses our voices. But we’re working on that!
As you say, we have pulled ourselves back from the brink before and I have faith that the overwhelming majority of British people are not instinctively aligned with these authoritarian values. If we have done it before, we can do it again.
Thanks. I'll check out 2073 :)
I too am shocked by the polling. If I was talking to someone who informed me that he, “would prefer an authoritarian system of government to one which acts within the democratic framework”, I would take a deep breath and ask him some questions.
I would ask him if he had thought this through?
I would suggest that if something is working badly it is natural to look for something better.
I would ask if he agreed that criticising is a lot easier than doing.
I would ask him if he had been attracted by someone criticising the government or someone putting forward positive alternatives?
And here is the crunch question:
What will you do if the strong authoritarian leader turns out to be a monster like Putin or Kim Jong Un of North Korea? You can’t vote him out at the next General Election!
I don’t want to be boring and obvious but the ultimate virtue in democracy, that often is far from perfect, is that when it becomes obvious that the government is doing a bad job the public can turf them out. That virtue must never be forgotten.
So let’s make democracy better!
Very well put, Ian. Spot on.
As many of us have been pressing for, the time has come to bring in P.R. for ALL elections. As it stands a split vote could let in the most horrific right wing extremism, as has been shown with 'tory' starmer. He has NO mandate any more that farrago's deform shower or the neo nazis of the tory party.
There is no doubt that FPTP no longer works.
So PR then? Complete PR also gives power to extreme minorities, think of the influence of the extreme right in Israel right now, when the huge majority of citizens do not agree with the government's actions.
There are the other problems with PR seen elsewhere and mentioned by other commentators.
So what then?
A suggestion is to look for a system where the majority of citizens get the government it wants and not the one it doesn't want.
So instead of a PR system where a doctrine supported by one in 600 people gets a voice in parliament and may even hold the balance of power, the most obnoxious do not get a look in.
Such a system is a single transferable vote system, which at least should deliver MPs that are most people's first second or third choice.
Doesn't that make the most sense?
Hi Michael,
PR is not a system per se, rather a class or family of systems with proportionality at their heart. STV is one of the main systems within that family (one with a lot of existing support, as it happens).
Open Britain’s position (in line with the APPG for Fair Elections) is that STV should be evaluated alongside all the other forms of PR (and FPTP) by an independent National Commission on Electoral Reform (NCER). If an NCER is set up, you (and everyone else) would have an opportunity to make the case for your preferred system and have it considered (rigorously and without political bias) as part of the process.
M
Why can we not have the electoral system debate publicly now? "Shut up and wait for this formal process that we might not achieve and might not make the conclusions you want" is no way to build a movement.
People could get really excited and energised about the ability to "rank the fascists last", in a way they cannot get excited about "proportional representation" when that would currently cause Reform UK to be the largest party.
I feel like everyone in the electoral reform movement has conspired to cut their own legs off.
Hi Sprint. Who is saying we need to wait to have that conversation? Not me. Not Open Britain. Not the APPG. The sooner we have a national-scale debate on this issue, the better. (And I welcome SfPR’s efforts in this regard.)
What we need to keep in mind is that talking and actually securing change are two different things. All too often, great work is done on the former and yet the latter remains frustratingly elusive. The thinking behind the NCER is focussed on maximising the chances of getting both. This isn’t an ‘either/or’ situation…we need both.
I’d love for electoral reform to be a so-called ‘doorstep issue’ right now and will support any sensible efforts in that direction. But I don’t want to march everyone up a very steep hill and then have to march them back down again in disappointment . Taking into account how change is ACTUALLY achieved in this country - which, sadly, is very different to how many people THINK it is achieved - the NCER represents our best opportunity of avoiding that. (You and others may disagree, obviously.)
M
Therefore, it follows that 67% of young people do NOT favour authoritarianism. Clearly, the latter are the ones who have actually GAINED from their educational studies. I can remember from my school days of 70 years ago, there was a similar fascination with the deeds of the nazis in WW2 but it did NOT mean we favoured the setting up of a dictatorship under the likes of farrago the fascist and his sturmtruppen !
Fair point, Alan. I guess the key difference now is that a party on 30% (some say less than that) can realistically get itself into government with two-thirds of the seats in the Commons...and then, essentially, do whatever they like on the (false) claim that they have a mandate from the people. That's a much more direct route from theory to practice than I think we've ever had before.
It looks to me that the people polled did not understand the word 'some' (in "even if it meant sacrificing some democratic freedoms"). Authoritarian rule means no democratic freedoms -- see Putin and other dictators. Trump is busy dismantling the American constitution, as another example.
The question should actually have been posed as "sacrificing all our democratic freedoms". I think it would then have got a lower percentage of support.
That doesn't stop the headlines of course. But it is important not to play into the hands of people who do genuinely want authoritarian government, Farage among them. The poll was flawed, its basis is faulty and that is at least part of the message in response to it.
This is all fair, John. I think specific examples of rights they would lose would have focussed their minds in a different way. I think the TUC did this well a few months ago when they asked people on the street questions like, "Do you think it would ok for your boss to sack you without giving a reason?" or "Should your boss be able to cut your holiday allowance on a whim?" (I'm not sure those were the exact questions but they were in that vein.) The responses were all very clear...no ambiguity. And those who were Farage supporters were astonished to find out that he had that week voted against legislation to bolster those sorts of rights...a clear sign of the priorities he would pursue if he ever got into Number 10.
Yes, that is a very good alternative survey.
I think it also backs up the general point that surveys are slanted. And we do all know that in the back of our minds. Of course I approve of the slant in this one :-)
The Adam smith institute?? A fossil fuel funded right wing think tank.
Thanks for your comment, Ruth. You raise a fair point regarding the transparency of donations to think tanks.
However, in this instance, I do not believe this is relevant to the data they have published. Firstly, whatever your thoughts on the ASI, it remains a reputable source of information, collecting data from a broad and representative group of British society.
Secondly, in response to the report, Emma Schubart, Data and Insights Manager at the ASI, says the findings should “ring alarm balls” and states “urgent action is needed to restore faith in the system”. I think this is proof enough that, in this instance, the ASI is not seeking to use this data to push any agenda in favour authoritarianism or Reform UK.
Here is the full report (with those quotes) for your perusal.
https://www.adamsmith.org/press-releases/one-third-of-young-people-prefer-authoritarianism-to-democracy
Thanks again for reading!
Firstly, you only need to dig a little into Schubart to see what a divisionist, anti immigration and pro Israel mouthpiece she is, second it's not your decision to decide what you think is relevant to the reader.
Hi Ruthie,
Now I see what’s irritating you. I would say a few things in response.
First, I agree with the general thrust of the point you make - it is, of course, a matter of paramount importance that we do not mislead our readers or leave material facts out of a piece. But, within that, there is the ’golden rule’ of all communications - knowing your audience. The Ugly Politix audience is, in the main, engaged and informed on the matters we talk about. It is unlikely they do not already know the ASI and what it stands for. As this already long piece was not focussed on them as an organisation, it is therefore a reasonable editorial decision not to get into that. And, if we did, where would we stop? The description you gave of them? A list of their directors? Work history of each? A list of funders? Accounts for the last 12 months? 24 months? Longer? Publishing Substacks - as opposed to, say, a Wikipedia page - involves making trade-off decisions about information and focus. In my view, our judgement was right on this one, given the audience we have.
Second, the implication of what you’re saying is that we should have dismissed this report because of its source, that we should not have published the piece and missed the opportunity to shine a light on a potentially existential issue for UK democracy (my organisation’s sole concern). That, to my mind, would be a very strange decision indeed. As is clear from the piece, action is desperately needed right now if we are to avoid a rapid slide into the kind of authoritarian regime we currently see in the States. The ‘left’ of British politics very often ties itself up in knots and undermines its ability to achieve its objectives by taking an overly puritanical approach. At Open Britain, we prefer to take a clear-eyed view of any evidence that comes our way and use it in any way we can to raise these important issues without, of course, boosting the very forces we are fighting.
Which takes me to my third point. Your comment implies that you think Open Britain (or specifically our Ugly Politix publication) intends to act as a mouthpiece for the kind of issues the ASI advocates or that we are naively doing so. Anyone who reads Ugly Politix will be in no doubt about where we stand on that front. Open Britain and Fair Vote UK (the other organisation I work for) established and are driving the APPG for Fair Election mentioned in the piece, now the largest and arguably the most active APPG in Parliament, precisely and explicitly to secure a fair electoral system where all voices are heard, to take ‘dark money’ out of British politics, and to combat disinformation in public discourse. Right-wing voices have a legitimate place in the democratic debate. What they do NOT have is the right to use the enormous wealth they tend to have access to, and the media platform that goes with that, to exploit the weaknesses in our system to secure a level of power over us that the popularity of their ideas does not warrant. That is precisely what Open Britain and Fair Vote UK spend everyday trying to fix. If, knowing that, you do not see that we are on your side, I’m afraid I’m lost.
I’m sorry to hit you with such a long reply but you raised a point - and used a tone - that often comes up in our work, and that I find somewhat depressing. Let us all expend our energy on finding ways to work together, ignoring minor and immaterial irritations, and support each other in the important fight against these forces (who, as you will know, have no such qualms).
Thank you for reading Ugly Politix and for taking the time to give us your thoughts. I hope I have given you a clearer understanding of ours.
M
I sense you are irritated, Ruthie...but can’t quite put my finger on why.
You should be telling your readers who these people are, it's important information.
Hi Mark,
It is important that the ASI has an agenda. All surveys are slanted and depend on the agenda of the organisation which commissioned them. Sometimes it is unconscious bias, of course.
Best regards,
John
I think I acknowledged that in my long reply, John. They definitely do. And most of our audience probably knows that. But what material difference would an expansion of that point make to the core message of the article? And should we also have dismissed similar research findings by Channel 4 News a few months back? Whoever does the research, the undeniable fact is that a significant number of young people are losing faith in democracy because it is not delivering for them. Rationally, they are looking around for something that promises to fix that...and, sadly, the thing that is doing that most effectively right now is the Farage show. I am watching with interest to see whether developments in the Corbyn/Sultana space are going to change that.
Humans,are not really in charge down here. We are in end times and Satan is taking more and more control as we approach the tribulation. Trump is the main anti-Christ and pushing the Satanic agenda to separate all he can from God, espescially Christians, this is why he pushes separatist, misogynistic, racist, povertist, transphobic, linguistist, geographist, ... agendas.