It is not that long ago that the majority of Britons would happily sit down with a pint and have a discussion about the events of the day, calm, not at all elevated as well as interested in exchanging detail to share for the consensus. That is still possible in some instances in this, the most beautiful and friendly county in England, but it is not universal.
As a general rule, those days are apparently long gone around the country, with many single-issues groups attempting to create their own niches, their own exclusive support group, their own constituencies and determined to categorise the rest of us as either sympathetic or ‘the enemy’. This, of course, relies on cherry-picking statistics which substitute for facts and belligerence for consideration and consistency. This is a hallmark of the inherently selfish and self-serving – not for them to have goals with the common good in mind. It also insults the honourable swing voter, a non-partisan participant who looks impartially at all offerings at each election and votes accordingly.
This divisive spirit, though, is reinforced by the majority of the press, continually looking for the outrageous, with more articles featuring Love Island than the existential war Ukraine has been fighting since 2022. The Press aims for the ‘Gotcha’ moments, to catch out a minister for not knowing the price of something mundane (what about value for our taxes spent?), a small trip in logic (how about digging into their consistency?), a revealing photograph (who cares?) or a look of personal distress (what do you expect – robots?).
ITV presenters are now accustomed to drawling, grandstanding and dressed for the golf course rather than soberly presenting the facts, which invites comment about them rather than the subject they have a duty to convey. It does not communicate either gravity or any conviction for their primary responsibilities.
Consider also the dire state of investigative reporting, the huge recent scandals that went on for years, throwing up anomalous statistics begging to be looked into by the vigorous and inquisitive. It took too many years to flush out the institutional failures of the Post Office scandal and the grooming gangs – the journalists that did eventually manage to dig into the detail had to conduct those investigations against the weight of taxpayer funded apparatchiks protecting their own positions and their fellows with the added defence of ‘if this was anything to discover, someone else would have done so already’. Not so.
Most members of the public, on the other hand, despite being generally starved of decent quality information and with a variety of different political allegiances or none at all, agree on many fundamental points of a wide variety of issues, so the conversation is actually more nuanced than is convenient for the press or single-topic political lobbyists.
A notable exception to this reasoned debate is the difficult topic of Brexit, which seems to be raising its head again. Most, though, in the difficult straits the country finds itself in, agree on our desired outcomes in the national interest, which should be the main point of agreement. We are very capable of working out the nuances around the edges – but nobody should simply accept the divisive ‘you must either be a BREXIT supporter or a Rejoiner’, because neither position actually addresses the central issues.
Certain politicians on the Right like to promote themselves as patriots, wrapping themselves in the Union Jack as a way of appealing to those of us who yearn for proper and unapologetic national leadership. However, this is immediately exposed as disingenuous if the same people cannot also unequivocally re-state as sacred the sovereignty of Ukraine. The idea that each country (Ukraine or UK) is not unapologetically sovereign is incompatible with the central tenets of patriotism.
Equally, the Left has been guilty of often using inflammatory language about patriotism, a concept that makes them inexplicably uncomfortable. Did not huge numbers of union members fight in the Second World War? Yet they still feel enabled to refer to those genuinely concerned with immigration as a threat to national security ‘racist’. If this sentiment were true, it should more correctly be described as ‘xenophobic’, which is not remotely as satisfying a taunt or as predictably inflammatory. To be fair to Wes Streeting, his language recently has been milder, referring to ‘nationalism’ but still in alarmist tones – however, all of these individuals should buy a dictionary, which evidences that these are not remotely the same things or are even close to describing the national character when these concerns are collectively expressed.
The United Kingdom is one of the most patriotic but least nationalistic country in the world, almost to a fault, we feel no innate sense of superiority of being British, just pride in our country even in these testing times.
We would be even prouder if our long tradition of reasoned and reasonable debate were evidenced in the House of Commons – which would be leadership by example – might we expect our elected representatives to recognise that many of them are elected by fine margins and for various reasons, not because their opinions are inherently superior or definitive? They are required to represent broad views in the interests of the communities they serve, not to be self-satisfied in the unassailable superiority of a personally held ideology.
We may take a lesson from the custom of the indigenous nations of what is now Canada and the United States. In serious community discussion, it would be custom to use a carved and decorated ‘talking stick’, which was a wooden, beautifully fashioned totem held in the hand of the speaker. Only the person holding it was permitted to speak, but on the moral obligation to not hold it for longer than necessary to make a reasonable point.
The discussion would start with an Elder, who would carefully choose their words to be objective and just, fitting for their role in the community. The stick would then be passed in a circle from speaker to speaker until each person had had a chance to address the audience, regardless of relative status, until a consensus was reached.
The symbology on the stick was significant – feathers and fur represented individual virtues. Eagle – symbolising grace, power, and intellectual abilities; Bear – great self-awareness, family connection and strength. Rabbit – softness, indicating using words carefully and diplomatically. Wolf – signifies perseverance, intuition, and success. Raven – creativity, humour, and acceptance of change. Likewise, colours were significant too – red for passion and for the joy of life or white for purity and peace. Speakers carried a moral obligation to emulate the best human attributes represented in the symbology of the stick. Lara Bird MP could take note.
We have serious problems to solve as a country and we do not need a debate designed by and pandering to single topic idealogues in their own interests – should we not adopt the mentality of the indigenous Americans and work together for the common good? It is the intransigent nature of extreme but confected positions that makes the problems impossible to solve in the national interest; it is time for us to navigate and negotiate our way through as a country and as a Herefordshire community.