Snobbery is a very British vice – but according to the author of a new book it is no longer about looking down on people for having the wrong accent or manners.
The “new snobbery” is a form of condescension practiced by university-educated “progressives” – directed at people they consider ignorant and bigoted, David Skelton argues.
He believes it is the biggest fault line in British politics, and could lead to the Conservative Party staying in power for the foreseeable future.
Skelton is one of the most influential centre-right thinkers in the country, whose previous book Little Platoons, contained the seeds of Boris Johnson’s flagship “levelling up” policy.
He is also a native of the North-East of England, having grown up in Consett, a former steel town in the Pennine foothills, which like other former Labour strongholds elected a Conservative MP in 2019.
For Skelton, the crumbling of Labour’s fabled “red wall” had been a long time coming.
“I felt that the status quo in both parties had rather taken for granted, rather ignored, the kind of people I went to school with – and the kind of people who, before the phrase became commonplace, were being ‘left behind’ by politicians of both parties.”
But it took the 2016 Brexit referendum – and its bitter aftermath – to bring things to a head.
“Working-class voters in places like Consett, places in the North East and Yorkshire, the Midlands – post-industrial places that had been long forgotten, just flexed their muscles for the first time.
“The response, I thought, was really disheartening.”
He is referring to the savage war of words between Leavers and Remainers that played out on social media in the weeks following the referendum.
“The number of times I heard people described as stupid or under-educated or bigoted,” he says, was “really annoying for me, because these are my friends, these are my family who are anything but bigoted and the very opposite of it.”
According to Skelton, Leavers were subjected to abuse from people “generally wealthier and better educated than them – or with a higher level of academic education”.
In his book, he argues that this is a new form of snobbery, more “insidious” than traditional forms because it “questions people’s ability to participate in the democratic process”.
Labour supporters and members of the People’s Vote campaign for another referendum were particularly susceptible to it, he claims.
He concedes that you would be hard-pressed to find examples of Labour politicians or activists – increasingly drawn from the city-dwelling professional classes – openly sneering at the working classes, beyond a few well-shared social media posts.
But he argues it is there in the tone of what they say and the issues they choose to prioritise. There is a chapter in his book on “wokeism” and “identity politics”, which he argues, is policed by a small, privileged elite.
Like other writers, on both the left and right, Skelton points the finger at a misguided version of meritocracy, which gives people fortunate enough to have had a good education licence to look down on those who haven’t.
In fact, his definition of the working class – always a slippery concept in post-industrial Britain – is people who did not go to university.
The professional classes, including politicians and journalists, have long been dominated by graduates, often from privileged private school backgrounds. Even those from more humble origins leave their home areas and friendship groups behind, in search of a better income and more acceptable opinions, argues Skelton.
He does not call for fewer young people to go on to higher education – but does argue for a reversal of the “savage” cuts in funding for further education and a higher social status for frontline workers.
He also bemoans the destruction of secure, skilled jobs that gave communities like Consett a sense of pride and meaning.
In this respect, his book, The New Snobbery, is very similar to another recent book, The Dignity of Labour, by Labour MP John Cruddas, who I interviewed in May.
Skelton is an admirer of Cruddas’s work, and like him sees salvation in the return of high-quality, well-paid jobs in manufacturing.
Many, including Cruddas, would argue that these jobs and the communities they sustained were destroyed by the Conservatives in the first place,
In the 1980, the closure of the steel plant in Consett, with the loss of 3,700 jobs, became a byword on the left for brutal, uncaring Thatcherite policies.
Skelton says the “headlong rush” towards deindustrialisation – and the switch to a service-based economy – in the 1980s and 1990s was a mistake.
He claims that under Boris Johnson there has been “a change in mindset and certainly a change in rhetoric” at the top of the Conservative Party. Hardline Thatcherite economics are increasingly out of favour – and “levelling up” is the latest buzzword, with promises to spend money on neglected parts of the country.
The jury is still out on whether levelling up will amount to much more than some showpiece infrastructure spending and a few thousands civil service jobs sent north. Detailed polices are promised for the autumn.
Skelton warns that “a lasting change can only happen if working-class voters become central to everything the (Conservative) party says and does”. This may involve upsetting vested interests, and donors, he adds.
The jury is also out on whether that will come to pass, but Boris Johnson does not have forever to consolidate his newfound support among the victims of the new snobbery, says Skelton.
“Frankly, the Tories are not going to have a majority of 80 for long if they don’t deliver for the voters who brought about that majority in the first place.
“These voters are patient, but they don’t have endless reserves of patience.”
The far right’s new focus on local politics, briefly explained – Vox.com
On Saturday, a rally by supporters of former President Donald Trump came and went peacefully, with a heavy police and media presence and only a handful of arrests. Before the event, officials in DC were focused on preventing a repeat of January 6 — but more than eight months after the insurrection, far-right groups have shifted their focus to more local causes that could nonetheless have a major impact on national politics.
According to Jared Holt, who researches domestic extremism for the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, right-wing extremists like those who stormed the Capitol building were “scared shitless” of creating another event like January 6 on Saturday — to the point that several conservative leaders, including Trump, warned their followers to stay away from the rally, claiming it was a trap.
Ultimately, only about 100 people showed up, according to an estimate by the Washingtonian’s Andrew Beaujon — far fewer than some pre-rally predictions — and the protesters were at times outnumbered by members of the media.
Good morning from *that* rally at the Capitol everyone’s been talking about. We’re about an hour away from official start time, and unsurprisingly we’re working with a ratio of approx 10 media per attendee. A classic rock mash-up is playing over the sound system @VICENews pic.twitter.com/EywP6XidJe
— Tess Owen (@misstessowen) September 18, 2021
But anemic participation at Saturday’s event doesn’t reflect fading right-wing enthusiasm for Trump’s election lies — his supporters are just changing tactics, pushing to elect like-minded politicians and change state legislation to fit a false narrative of election fraud.
“Many are instead … applying that political energy into local and regional scenes,” Holt told Vox’s Aaron Rupar last week.
Specifically, that energy has manifested itself in a far-right push to intimidate current state and local election officials, many of whom played a major role in pushing back on Trump’s election fraud conspiracies in 2020, and to install a new wave of pro-Trump election officials.
It’s a tactic that could have major implications for future US elections, and one that extremism experts have been raising the alarm about.
“Going local, [far-right movement figures] suggest to each other, might also help solidify power and influence their movements gained during the Trump years,” Holt wrote in his Substack newsletter last week. “After all, few people are truly engaged in local politics. That’s a lot of influence up for grabs to a dedicated movement.”
The local impact of Trump’s election lie has been most visible in some of the battleground states that swung to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, for example, election officials from both parties have been deluged with harassment from Trump supporters, including explicit death threats. And it’s not a small-scale problem: Reuters has identified hundreds of similar threats all across the US, though the victims have found little recourse with law enforcement.
The harassment has been so severe that about a third of all election workers now feel unsafe in their jobs, according to a poll conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group for the Brennan Center for Justice earlier this year.
And as the New York Times reported on Saturday, there’s now a legal defense committee, the Election Official Legal Defense Network, specifically to support election officials facing harassment and intimidation.
In many of the same states where officials have faced relentless harassment, far-right figures are also looking to put them out of a job. In Georgia, for example, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who repeatedly defied Trump to confirm that Biden won both Georgia’s electoral votes and the 2020 election, will face a Trump-endorsed primary challenger, Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA).
According to Politico, Hice voted against certifying the 2020 electoral college results in January, and he has continued to promote voter fraud lies since then. Just after Hice announced his bid in March, Trump issued a statement lauding Hice as “one of our most outstanding congressmen.”
“Unlike the current Georgia Secretary of State, Jody leads out front with integrity,” Trump said in the statement. “Jody will stop the Fraud and get honesty into our Elections!”
Hice isn’t the only secretary of state candidate to have embraced Trump’s election fraud rhetoric, either. Candidates like Mark Finchem in Arizona and Kristina Karamo in Michigan, both of whom have been endorsed by Trump, could have substantial oversight of how elections in those states are run if they win office, though actual vote counting is done by counties and municipalities.
Finchem has parroted the claims of voter fraud and endorsed a spurious “audit” of the vote count in Arizona’s Maricopa County, the AP reports. Finchem, a current state representative, also admitted that he was at the Capitol on January 6, but claims to have stayed 500 yards away and that he didn’t know about the attack until later.
Like Finchem, Karamo has also endorsed false election fraud claims: According to the Detroit News, she pushed voter fraud claims during the 2020 election, telling Michigan state senators that she witnessed two cases of election workers misinterpreting ballots to the advantage of Democrats, and she appeared alongside MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell at a June rally, spreading further unsubstantiated claims of election fraud.
As Politico pointed out earlier this year, the actual power of secretaries of state varies by state, and is often more “ministerial” than anything — but the danger of pro-Trump election officials having a high-profile platform to espouse election conspiracies is very real.
“There’s a symbolic risk, and then there’s … functional risk,” former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican, told Politico in May. “Any secretary of state who is a chief elections official is going to have a megaphone and a media platform during the election. A lot of the power is the perception of power, or that megaphone.”
Candidates like Hice, Finchem, and Karamo all still have to win primaries and general elections — by no means a sure thing — if they want to become the top election officials in their states. But even without election conspiracists in secretary of states’ offices, some states, like Arizona and Pennsylvania, have already started chipping away at the framework of their states’ election laws.
On Wednesday, the GOP-held Pennsylvania legislature’s Intergovernmental Operations Committee took another step toward a “forensic audit” of the 2020 election results like the one currently ongoing in Arizona when it voted to issue a subpoena for voter information — including information that’s typically not public, like the last four digits of voters’ Social Security Numbers.
And in Arizona, where a bizarre “audit” of the 2020 election has already been shambling along for months, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey has also taken steps to limit the power of the Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, Katie Hobbs. In June, Ducey signed a law stripping Hobbs of her power to defend the results of an election in court.
“This is a petty, partisan power grab that is absolutely retaliation towards my office,” Hobbs, who is running for governor, told NPR.
“It’s clear by the fact that it ends when my term ends,” she said. “It is at best legally questionable, but at worst, likely unconstitutional.”
Democrats, though, are making some attempts to push back against the right’s attempts to subvert future elections. In August, the House passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would help restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) recently introduced her own voting rights bill, the Freedom to Vote Act, which is aimed at preventing the very election subversions the Republicans are trying to enact in multiple key states.
That bill, however — like the Democrats’ previous voting rights legislation, the For the People Act — has essentially no chance of becoming law under current Senate rules, since the filibuster means it would require at least 10 Republican votes to pass.
Senate Democrats could end the filibuster, or create a carve-out for voting rights legislation, using their simple 50-vote majority, but that path also appears unlikely thanks to continued opposition from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV).
And with efforts like these tied up in a deeply polarized Congress, Trump supporters peddling election fraud conspiracies can continue to make inroads in local races and legislation.
“I don’t think we’ve ever been at a point that’s been quite this tenuous for the democracy,” Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey and co-chair of the States United Democracy Center, told CNN last week. “I think it’s a huge danger because it’s the first time that I’ve seen it being undermined — our democracy being undermined from within.”
Politics Professor Emeritus leads prestigious four-part lecture series – University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily
When Brantly Womack, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Virginia and Senior Faculty Fellow at the Miller Center, retired from his professorship at the University last May, there was a noticeable loss in the Politics department’s coverage of contemporary China and Chinese politics. No classes on Chinese politics are being offered this semester, and the Politics department has not yet instated a replacement for Womack as the department’s China expert. This was a catalyst for Womack’s decision to host a four-part lecture series entitled “China and the Recentering of East Asia” through the University’s own East Asia Center, beginning Thursday and with three more planned through Oct. 7.
“This is my little effort to continue presenting something available to students about the big picture on China and Asia,” Womack said.
Womack’s speaker series has been set to run for four consecutive weekly lectures, covering a chronological scope of China’s history and positioning in the changing regional and global socio-political landscape. Each session will feature Womack’s own knowledge, an assortment of attendee questions organized by a chosen moderator and significant collaboration with a renowned Chinese expert.
“I could combine the presentation, not only with a webinar, but also top Asia experts to comment on the history of Asia or comment on my ideas on the history of Asia,” Womack said. “That adds a tremendous amount to the depth and to the richness of the ideas available.”
The first session of the series took place Thursday night and was moderated by Ambassador Stephen Mull, the University’s current vice provost for global affairs. To kick off his discussion on the topic of “China’s Premodern Centricity,” Womack welcomed Wang Gungwu, a professor at National University of Singapore and renowned Chinese historian, as his first guest collaborator.
In addition to Zoom, the event welcomed both in-person attendance and a livestreamed service on YouTube for those who did not register on time. 300 people alone were registered on Zoom, and this significant online turnout was complemented by the estimated 40 to 50 in-person student and faculty attendees who gathered in Nau Hall’s large lecture space. All attendees were masked in accordance with the University’s COVID-19 policy, and everyone sat fairly distanced from each other.
East Asia Center Director Dorothy Wong welcomed all of the event’s in-person and virtual attendees at 8:30 p.m. Thursday before passing the microphone to Mull. After a brief recognition of all of Womack’s accomplishments, Mull invited the series’ host to take the stage, and the main presentation began.
Womack’s first presentation emphasized three different kinds of continuities throughout Chinese history — situational factors, asymmetric perspectives and relational interactions. The now-retired professor expanded upon each continuity with carefully articulated detail before inviting his guest Gungwu to elaborate, emphasize and challenge his presentation.
“It was a really insightful discussion,” said first-year College student Juan Arratia. “There were a whole bunch of interesting perspectives… My favorite moment would probably be when [Wang] modified a bit of what the Professor said and added a new spin to it, I liked that a lot.”
This interest certainly didn’t end with Arratia — professors and students alike sat attentively in the crowd at Nau Hall.
Attendees took notes, listened and engaged with the professor’s intellectual and humorous insights. Although reasons for attendance varied, there seemed to be a unanimous interest in the chosen subjects being discussed.
“I heard about the event through my engagements class,” first-year College student Reese Whittaker said. “I would really like to attend the other parts of the lecture series … I think it’s important to know history everywhere in the world [because] I’m a firm believer that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Brian Murphy, the East Asia Center’s administrative coordinator, furthered Whittaker’s take on the importance of understanding history from a more broad perspective.
“I mean, it’s not the type of thing that really is taught in the curriculum at any level,” Murphy said. “You know you can get a B.A. and have really no idea about the history of the East … It’s kind of amazing that that’s the case, that world history is always so Eurocentric.”
Both Murphy and Whittaker’s responses elucidate the importance of continuing to broaden our understanding of contemporary China despite the topic’s absence from the University’s curriculum this semester. In the wake of the Asian Student Union-led survey report of APIDA students released in February, opportunities like this lecture series hope to continue acting as avenues for awareness and contextualization.
“I think a lot of our students are interested,” Wong said. “I learned that among the U.Va. undergraduate population, 25 percent of students have Asian and Asian American backgrounds. I hope the University pays attention to addressing the needs of the students of Asian and Asian American background.”
In the coming weeks, Womack will return to the podium of Nau 101 and virtually welcome three more internationally esteemed guest speakers from China, Australia and Taiwan.
His selection of speakers is impressive to say the least, and might not have been possible without his ready acceptance of a hybrid format.
“They’re all friends of mine and I’m happy to say that they’re my number one choices and they all agreed immediately to do this,” Womack said. “And even though I think remote teaching has all sorts of problems, remote events — that’s something that Zoom has added a whole new dimension of possibility to that we’d never be able to pay for, let alone actually get the people who are going to be commenting over the next few weeks.”
Trudeau warns against vote split in tight Canada election
Brooklin, Ontario (Reuters) -With the Canadian election in a dead heat two days before the Sept. 20 vote, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Conservative rival implored supporters to stay the course and avoid vote splitting that could hand their opponent victory.
Both men campaigned in the same seat-rich Toronto region on Saturday as they tried to fend off voter defections to the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) and the populist People’s Party of Canada (PPC), both of which are rising in polls.
The latest Sondage Leger poll conducted for the Journal de Montreal and the National Post newspapers put the Conservatives one percentage point ahead of Trudeau’s Liberals, with 33% over 32%. The NDP was at 19% while the PPC was at 6%.
Trudeau, 49, called an early election, seeking to convert approval for his government’s handling of the pandemic into a parliamentary majority. But he is now scrambling to save his job, with Canadians questioning the need for an early election amid a fourth pandemic wave.
“Despite what the NDP likes to say, the choice is between a Conservative or a Liberal government right now,” Trudeau said in Aurora, Ontario. “And it does make a difference to Canadians whether we have or not a progressive government.”
Trudeau has spent two of the final three days of his campaign in Ontario where polls show the NDP could gain seats, or split the progressive vote.
A tight race could result in another minority government, with the NDP, led by Jagmeet Singh, playing kingmaker. It has also put a focus on turnout, with low turnout historically favouring the Conservatives.
An Ekos poll released on Saturday also showed the main parties neck and neck though the Liberals had an edge at 30.6% compared to 27.7% for the Conservatives. At these levels, neither party appears likely to reach the 170 seats needed for a majority in the 338-seat House of Commons.
With a Liberal minority the most likely result based on polls, Trudeau was asked if this could be his last election. He responded: “There is lots of work still to do, and I’m nowhere near done yet.”
If voters give Trudeau, who was first elected in 2015, a third term, everything they dislike about him “will only get worse,” Conservative leader Erin O’Toole told supporters on Saturday, saying his party was the only option for anyone dissatisfied with the Liberals, in a dig at the PPC.
The PPC, which has channelled anger against mandatory vaccines into surprising support, could draw votes away from the Conservatives in close district races, helping the Liberals eke out a win.
An election that had appeared set to be an easy win for Trudeau, whose Liberals had led comfortably in polls before it was called, has become an unexpected slog due to a lackluster campaign, the reemergence of old scandals, and public anger over its timing.
“I wish it wasn’t happening, to be honest,” said Connie Riordan, a voter in Cambridge, Ontario, who said she had switched to the Conservatives in advance voting from the Liberals.
On Saturday, the Liberals announced they would drop a candidate over a 2019 sexual assault charge that the party said was not disclosed to them. The candidate, a naval reservist running in an open Liberal seat in downtown Toronto, will not be a member of the Liberal caucus, if he is elected, the party said.
Earlier this month, Liberal member of parliament Raj Saini ended his re-election campaign amid allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards female staffers.
O’Toole, 48, campaigned in Saini’s district on Saturday, one of three Liberal ridings he is hoping to swing his way. Earlier, he appeared in a Conservative-held riding west of Toronto that was closely fought during the 2019 election.
The area’s member of Parliament, who is not running again, came under fire last spring for saying COVID-19 lockdowns were the “single greatest breach of our civil liberties since the internment camps during WW2.”
O’Toole, who said he wants to get 90% of Canadians vaccinated, has refused to say who among Conservative Party candidates were.
(Editing by Daniel Wallis and Andrea Ricci)
Former Danish cyclist Chris Anker Sorensen dies in road accident – The Globe and Mail
World's first space tourists splash down in their SpaceX capsule after three days in orbit – Yahoo Eurosport UK
Stagflation rocked the economy before. Is it coming back? – CNN
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Business24 hours ago
CN Rail to slash capital spending, resume stock buybacks as shareholder battle looms – The Globe and Mail
Politics18 hours ago
Trudeau warns against vote split in tight Canada election
Health17 hours ago
Coronavirus cases in Quebec rise by 821 with three new deaths and two more hospitalizations – CTV News Montreal
Sports18 hours ago
WTA roundup: Finals set in Luxembourg, Portoroz
News18 hours ago
British Columbia school district to lock all schools due to anti-vax protests
News18 hours ago
U.S. resumes talks with Huawei CFO on resolving criminal charges – Globe and Mail
News18 hours ago
U.S. lawmakers push Biden to lift Canadian travel restrictions
Art21 hours ago
Richmondite contributed artwork to support councillor Au's mobile art gallery – Richmond News