This is a review of a study entitled “The four sides in the
UK’s ‘culture wars.’” The study was done by researchers from King’s College,
London, and published in June 2021; you can find it via the link at [[1]].
It classified a sample of 2,834 respondents to an Ipsos MORI survey of the
views of people in the UK on what they call “the country’s culture war debate” into
four groups. The researchers dub these groups “Traditionalists,” “Moderates,”
“the Disengaged” and “Progressives.”
The response data came from a panel Ipsos call the “UK
Knowledge Panel.” There is a description of this panel here: [[2]].
I don’t know exactly how they pick people to ensure that the panel is, in their
words, “fully representative of the UK population.” In fact, I would consider
that to be a very tall order indeed. In any case, the panel is described as a
“random probability” panel, and membership seems to be by invitation.
The researchers used a statistical technique called “latent
class analysis” to seek the best possible grouping scheme for their classification.
Latent class analysis is not a new technique, having been first mooted more
than 70 years ago. But it is only relatively recently that it has become
commonly used, and the ways in which the method is used still seem to be
evolving. The technically inclined might want to see [[3]]
for a recent overview of the method.
It's worth noting that the actual division of individual
responses into classes, given a particular set of researcher decisions, is done
using a statistical tool. But the latent class analysis process is heavily
driven by decisions made by the researchers, such as how many classes the responses
should be divided into, and at what point you stop the process.
I wonder whether, if the researchers had made different
decisions – for example, dividing the population into three or five groups,
rather than four – the results might have been very different? If a three-group
structure had amalgamated the Moderates and the Disengaged, for example, the
“take home message” should have been of a disaffected, apolitical majority
stuck, through no choice of their own, in between two roughly equal groups, both
of them politicized and neither of them friendly. In Benjamin Franklin’s phrase,
“two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.” A sad (and, in my
opinion, correct) interpretation of the state of “democracy” in the UK today.
Perhaps, at the bottom of my mind, I am not fully convinced
that latent class analysis is actually a good technique to use on a question
such as this.
The four groups
In their introduction, the researchers say: “Traditionalists
and Progressives inevitably have very divergent views on key issues, such as
the British empire and the Black Lives Matter movement, and make very different
value judgements about society and culture in the UK. But they make up just one
half of the population; the two groups that make up the other half have more
variable or less strong views on relevant issues. Many in the Disengaged group
often don’t take a position on them at all.”
Of Moderates, they say: “Despite being the largest group
identified in this study, as well as having the most diverse views and
political beliefs, the Moderate position tends to lose out to the
Traditionalist and Progressive when it comes to media and political attention,
reflecting how the debate in the UK is often focused at the more extreme ends
of the spectrum.”
Traditionalists
Traditionalists form 26% of the sample. In summary:
“Oldest and most heavily male group. Most nostalgic for country’s past and
proud of British empire. 97% think political correctness has gone too far, and
most likely to feel UK has done enough on equal rights for historically
marginalized groups.”
Key demographics: “61% male. 56% aged 55 or older. 59%
Conservative. 78% Leavers. 5% ethnic minorities (versus 11% in sample as a
whole).” “Highest share of members who are homeowners.”
Progressives
Progressives form 23% of the sample. In summary: “Youngest
group, with highest education level. Most likely to think women’s rights,
ethnic minority rights and trans rights not gone far enough. Most likely to be
ashamed of British empire, and most in favour of political correctness.”
Key demographics: “45% aged 34 or younger. 55% female.
Labour (46%) and third party (41%) supporters. 94% Remain. 16% ethnic
minorities (versus 11% in sample as a whole).” “Almost 50% have university
degrees – the highest share of all the groups.”
Moderates
Moderates form 32% of the sample. In summary: “Support
greater rights for women and ethnic minorities – but less strongly than
Progressives. Agree political correctness gone too far, yet not nostalgic for
past nor proud of empire.”
Key demographics: “33% aged 35-54 and 38% aged 55+. 53%
female. Politically diverse: 28% Conservative, 33% Labour, 26% other party. 63%
Remain. 12% ethnic minorities (versus 11% in sample as a whole).” “This group
is the second most highly educated, with 31% having a degree.”
The Disengaged
The Disengaged form 18% of the sample. In summary: “Stand
out for neutrality on politics and Brexit. Least likely to take a position on
equal rights for ethnic minorities, and least likely to take stance on culture
war issues.”
Key demographics: “40% aged 35-54. 58% female. 44% don’t
support any political party. Diverse Brexit identities: 29% Leave, 34% Remain,
37% neither. 12% ethnic minorities (versus 11% in sample as a whole).” “Joint
lowest share of degree holders (14%).” “Lowest rate of home ownership (63%) and
highest rate of social housing (17%).”
Which group would I have ended up in?
Myself? I’m a 68-year-old male, with a pink skin and a
degree in pure mathematics from Cambridge. I am a hard-core libertarian, self-identify
as a minarchist (one who supports only a minimum of government), and consider
myself neither right-wing nor left-wing. I was, and still am, an ardent
Brexiteer; because, for me, the imposition of the EU on people in the UK was done
fraudulently.
I have a strong ethical sense, and a strong desire for
justice and for maximum freedom for everyone, consistent with living in a
civilized community. I am by nature independent and individualistic. I regard
myself as a progressive, in the true sense of the word; one who wants unbridled
human progress, freedom, individual justice, and prosperity for all who earn
it.
As far as party politics goes, I was brought up in a Tory
household. I voted Tory in 1983 and 1987, because I disliked Labour for what
they did in the 1960s and 70s. Since then, my dislike of Labour has deepened
into hatred, because in 1999 they killed off my career as a one-man software
consultant with a bad law called IR35, and as a result I am now facing poverty
in my old age. But I have come to feel contempt and hatred for the Tories too;
I regard them as a lying, arrogant bunch of psychopaths, with no concern at all
for the people they are supposed to “represent.” A plague on both their houses,
I now say.
I have come to detest the Liberal Democrats also, because
of what they did when in power in my local area around 2004. (They were the
ones that brought in the speed bumps and the creeping speed limits.) And the
Greens I see as extremists that want to trash our economy and our freedoms. For
I have studied the facts in the man-made “climate change” debate, and I am
contemptuous of the alarmist narrative and all the politics that goes with it. I
consider the Greens, and all those that promote or support the green agenda, as
traitors to human civilization; they deserve to be kicked out of our civilization, and denied all its benefits.
Thus, I feel contempt for all four mainstream parties in
the UK, for the UK political system as a whole, and for most of those that take
an active part in it. As a result, I have not voted in a general election since
1987. (I was planning to vote for the Brexit party in 2019, but the candidate
in my constituency was stood down, and decided not to stand as an Independent).
I am currently a member of the Reform UK party, but I am
becoming more and more concerned that they are failing to distinguish and
distance themselves sufficiently from the mainstream parties to be able to break
out of the current, failed, mould of UK politics.
So, if I had been a participant in the MORI poll, in which
group might I have ended up? Demographically, I could have been a
Traditionalist; but I’m no conservative. Despite labelling myself as
progressive, many of my views are strongly opposed to those of the Progressive
group. I’m certainly disengaged from the political system, but I have strong
views on most of the culture war issues; so, I can’t really be Disengaged
according to the researchers’ characterization. That leaves Moderate as the
least bad fit. Even though I am hardly a moderate, even by my own reckoning!
Maybe this “culture war” stuff is more complicated than even those who research
it think?
In the remainder of this missive, I thought it worth my
while to document my own responses to the MORI questionnaire, whose data the
researchers analyzed. The questions are numbered according to the page of the
PDF on which the results are presented.
The groups’ identifying characteristics
The four sides are distinguished by their attitudes towards historically
marginalized groups
Q10.1: In the UK, transgender rights have… Not gone
far enough? Gone as far as they should go? Don’t know? Gone too far?
A10.1: Gone as far as they should go. This could put
me in any of the Moderate, Traditionalist and/or Disengaged camps on the issue.
Comment: This is quite a complex issue. I appreciate that
some people have different sexualities from others, and I don’t personally find
that a problem. And I don’t object to people wanting to change their own gender
identity, if it doesn’t harm anyone else. But I do object strongly to those
that want to force or browbeat people into change they don’t want. I also
object to being expected, as a taxpayer, to pay for schemes like “changing
places” toilets.
Q10.2: “When it comes to giving Black, Asian and
minority ethnic people equal rights with white people, things have gone far
enough in the UK.” Agree? Neither agree nor disagree (or don’t know?) Disagree?
A10.2: Neither agree nor disagree. I’m firmly in the
Disengaged camp on this one.
Comment: I take the view that people should be judged and
treated, not by who they are, but only according to how they behave. Thus, I myself
seek to avoid discriminating on grounds of race. And I consider racism, and
most of all institutional racism, to be ethically wrong. But on the other hand,
I object to all forms of “affirmative action,” racial quotas and the like,
because they depart from the principle that each individual deserves to be
treated according to how he or she behaves. I also note, with amusement, that
the question as worded contains a subtle anti-white bias, since “Black” and
“Asian” are capitalized while “white” is not!
Q10.3: “When it comes to giving women equal rights
with men, things have gone far enough in the UK.” Agree? Neither agree nor
disagree (or don’t know?) Disagree?
A10.3: Agree. I side with the Traditionalists here.
Comment: I take the view that you earn your rights by
respecting the equal rights of others. Thus, I do not object to women in
general expecting the same rights as men. And as in the case of race, as an
individual I try not to discriminate against women because they are women.
However, I do object to the aggressive way in which feminists have behaved in
putting forward their case. I object very strongly to radical feminism, and its
socialist or Marxist aspects. And I object to those that want to force me to use
gender-neutral language.
Most traditionalists are proud of the British Empire and would like their
country to return to a past state – in stark contrast to Progressives
Q11.1: The British empire is something… To be proud
of? Neither/don’t know? To be ashamed of?
A11.1: Neither. That makes me Disengaged, or perhaps
Moderate.
Comment: The British empire was a thing of its time; but its
time is long gone. The British were by no means the worst of the colonialists, and
they did do some good in some places. But the colonial system in general was
not a just one.
Q11.2: “I would like my country to be the way it used
to be.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor disagree (or don’t
know?) Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A11.2: Strongly disagree. This time, I’m in the
Progressive camp.
Comment: History moves on, and human needs change and evolve.
To demand that everyone return to some mythical past, which probably never
existed anyway, is idiocy.
Traditionalists and Progressives’ divergent views on the UK’s history are
reflected in their pride in the country
Q12.1: “I am proud of my country.” Strongly agree?
Tend to agree? Neither agree nor disagree (or don’t know?) Tend to disagree?
Strongly disagree?
A12.1: Strongly disagree. That puts me on the extreme
wing of the Progressives!
Comment: The UK’s political system, along with the political
systems in place in the rest of the world today, is kaput. And
democracy, far from solving the problems, seems almost to make things worse. I
consider parliament and the government in general to be dishonest,
untrustworthy and totally out of touch with ordinary people; and I personally am
even further estranged from them than most.
Moreover, the idea that a silly old woman, who lives in a
castle and has never done a decent day’s productive work in her life, has a
right to rule over me as a “sovereign,” I find insulting. And her son and heir
is a shill for a globalist political and economic élite, that are hostile to freedom and earned prosperity
for ordinary people. He’s a hypocrite, to boot.
Q12.2: “Too many people in the UK run our country
down.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor disagree (or don’t
know?) Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A12.2: Tend to disagree. On this one, I’m Progressive,
or possibly Moderate.
Comment: If it’s broke (and it is), it’s time to get fixing
it. And you can’t fix anything properly without first explicating the problems,
and bringing them out into the open.
Progressives strongly favour being politically correct, while
Traditionalists think all viewpoints should be aired, even if offensive
Q13.1: “Some people think that the way people talk
needs to be more sensitive to people from different backgrounds. Others think
that many people are just too easily offended.” Where would you place yourself
on this scale? (0 to 7: 0 = People are too easily offended, 7 = Need to change
the way people talk.)
A13.1: 0. That puts me at the furthest extreme of the
Traditionalists!
Comment: Those that think the way people talk “needs to” be
changed, have it totally bass-ackwards. It’s how you listen that matters
when you are dealing with people from different backgrounds. Those, that seek
to force other people to change their behaviours, are the ones that ought to
change their behaviours. Oh, and the phrase “needs to” is often a sign
of someone that wants to use government force to change others’ behaviour.
Q13.2: If you had to choose, is it more important for
universities… To expose students to all points of view, even if they are
offensive or biased? To prohibit offensive speech on campus that is biased
against certain groups? Neither/Don’t Know?
A13.2: To expose students to all points of view, even
if they are offensive or biased. That puts me in the Traditionalist and
Moderate camps.
Comment: If students are not exposed to all points of view –
including offensive ones, biased ones, unpopular ones, and ones that are just
plain wrong – how are they ever going to acquire the skills of critically
analyzing those views, to see whether they hold up or not?
More broadly, the desire of many Progressives to censor
others’ views, combined with the Progressives being by far the most university
educated group, reflects the corruption that has taken place in universities
over the last half century or so. And I take the view that those that wish to
censor opposing ideas are tacitly admitting that they are unable to respond to
those ideas with any good arguments; as happened with the Catholic church over Galileo.
Nearly all Traditionalists think political correctness has gone too far –
and majorities of the Moderates and the Disengaged feel the same
Q14.1: “Political correctness has gone too far.”
Agree? Neither agree nor disagree (or don’t know?) Disagree?
A14.1: Agree. Here, I’m with the majority, and against
the Progressives.
Comment: See what I said above about censorship, and
corruption in universities.
The four groups have distinct political allegiances
Q15.1: Do you support/are you closer to any political
party? Conservative? Labour? Other party? No party?
A15.1: Other party/No party.
Comment: In general, I detest politics. Until 2019, I had
never even contemplated having anything to do with a political party. But
Brexit was, for me, an absolutely vital necessity – a sine qua non,
without which people in the UK could have no hope of escaping the current,
decaying world political system. Thus, in 2019 I joined the Brexit party; and when
the Reform UK party was born, I followed the natural path into it.
Now, the Reform party has some decent people. But I am
becoming increasingly concerned that it is aligning itself too close to the
mainstream. For me, it needs to be far more radical if it is to become
successful. In particular, it must come out, not just against the Tories’
botched plans for “net zero,” but against the nonsense that any curbs on carbon
dioxide emissions this century would bring any nett benefit to humanity at all.
Q15.2: Thinking about the UK’s relationship with the
European Union, do you think of yourself as a “Remainer,” a “Leaver,” or do you
not think of yourself in that way? Remain? Leave? Neither/don’t know?
A15.2: Leave. That puts me with Traditionalists, and
a minority of Moderates and Disengaged.
Comment: The EU is even more remote and less accountable
than the UK élites
– and they are far worse than bad enough!
Q15.3: “The government should promote… in our
society.” More progressive values? No particular set of values? More
traditional values?
A15.3: No particular set of values. That puts me with
majorities of Moderates and Disengaged.
Comment: The response percentages to this question are very
interesting. Both Progressives and Traditionalists are politicized; they both want
to see government support their side in the values debate. Whereas I do
not see it as a valid function of government to impose any particular set of
values on anyone. I see government as like a referee in a football match – it
is not any part of his function to change the rules of the game, or the shape of the ball!
As to my own values, to a first cut they are the values of humanity,
of reason, honesty and individual justice, of the Renaissance, of the
Enlightenment, and of honest business and industry. As opposed to the negative
“values” of the state and politics, of hierarchy and religious intolerance, of Machiavellian
dishonesty and psychopathic behaviour, of collectivism, and of suppression of
truth, human rights, justice, freedom and prosperity.
Black Lives Matter divides the four groups, but there is more unanimity
over lockdown restrictions
Q16.1: From what you’ve read and heard, how do you
feel about the Black Lives Matter movement? Support? Neither support nor
oppose? Oppose?
A16.1: Support, but with certain reservations. That
puts me solidly among the Moderates.
Comment: When BLM stick to their main focus, of getting rid
of police brutality – against black people, or against anyone else – I’m with
them all the way. But when they rant about “social justice” or “climate
justice,” or mount disruptive protests like blocking airport runways, I’m against
them.
Q16.2: “Do you see yourself as a supporter or an
opponent of [coronavirus] restrictions, or do you not think of yourself in that
way? Supporter? Do not think of self that way (or don’t know?) Opponent?
A16.2: Opponent. That puts me in a minority, even
among Traditionalists and Moderates.
Comment: I caught COVID before it was even officially in the
UK, and had recovered from it six weeks before the first lockdown. I have
followed world COVID statistics in detail for two years now, and am well aware
that neither lockdowns nor mask mandates have been proved to have had nearly as
significant an effect on transmission of the virus as many seem to think. And though
vaccines do seem to reduce mortality per case, they don’t seem to do much if
anything to reduce transmission. Moreover, I am a conscientious objector to
taking COVID vaccinations, not so much because of concern about the
vaccinations themselves, but because I am opposed to any kind of compulsion in
health matters. I can understand that sometimes there may be a case that people
ought to take certain protective steps; but I will always want to evaluate that case, in objective and quantitative detail, before deciding to
act.
I also found the fine and prosecution of Piers Corbyn over
his COVID demonstrations to be a serious case of government over-reach. (Even
more so, because of the “Partygate” scandal, that saw politicians and government
officials in 2020 holding Christmas parties in clear violation of “laws” they
themselves were involved in making!) Whatever you may think of some of Piers
Corbyn’s fellow travellers in that cause, his right to organize non-disruptive public
protests should have been honoured. And I felt that the lockdown of spring 2021,
in particular, went on many weeks longer than it needed to. But that said, the UK
government’s handling of COVID did improve greatly once Sajid Javid took over
as health secretary.
Different views on culture war issues reflect different underlying values
Progressives and Traditionalists make fundamentally different value
judgements about society and culture in the UK
Q18.1: “Young people today don’t have enough respect
for traditional values.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor
disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A18.1: Tend to agree. That puts me in the mainstream
of all the groups except Progressives.
Comment: The idea of “traditional values” seems to me to be
rather ill-defined. If it means Enlightenment values like reason, the rule of
law and government for the benefit of the governed, then I support those
values. If, on the other hand, it means conservative “values” like political nationalism,
or adherence to a particular set of religious mores, then I do not
support those values. But what I see today is that few young people are being
taught the values that I care about. The problem does not lie with the young
people themselves, but with the education system. And, in particular,
universities are seeking to instil into young people bad non-values like political
correctness, collectivism and deep green environmentalism.
Q18.2: “People in the UK should be more tolerant of
those who lead unconventional lives.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither
agree nor disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A18.2: Strongly agree. That puts me towards the
Progressive side on this one.
Comment: Everyone is an individual. We are all different,
and have different needs and desires. I take the view that, if what you want to
do doesn’t harm anyone else, and isn’t intended to harm anyone else, then it
should be OK for you to do it.
Q18.3: “The culture in the UK is changing too fast.”
Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor disagree? Tend to disagree?
Strongly disagree?
A18.3: Neither agree nor disagree. That makes me
Disengaged, or possibly Moderate.
Comment: I don’t feel this question really addresses the
issue. That issue, I think, is not so much the speed of change, but its
direction. A far better statement to which to respond would have been: “The
culture in the UK is changing in a good direction.” To which, my response
would have been: Tend to disagree.
The groups think in different and sometimes contradictory ways about
various aspects of free speech and the right to offend
Q19.1: “Censorship of films and magazines is
necessary to uphold moral standards.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither
agree nor disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A19.1: Strongly disagree. That puts me among the
ultra-Progressives, again!
Comment: As I said earlier, a desire to censor a point of
view usually means that the wannabe censors cannot provide good arguments
against it. Also, it is the listener, viewer or reader that ought to bear the
burden of adjusting perceptions, not the speaker. Thus, censoring ideas that do
not incite violence or disruptive behaviour is always wrong among adults who voluntarily
consent to receive those ideas. As to children, it is up to the parents to
guide what they may see, read or hear.
Q19.2: “‘No-platforming’ is the right response to
speakers with controversial views.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither
agree nor disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
(The researchers describe “no-platforming” as “students
trying to prevent invited speakers, whose views the students believe to be
unacceptable, from speaking, or disrupting the events they are speaking at.”)
A19.2: Strongly disagree. This time, I’m with the
ultra-Traditionalists!
The researchers observe as follows: “From these questions it
is possible to see some level of contradiction between some of the groups’
positions on censorship. For example, Progressives, who in other areas are the
most willing to limit freedom of speech, are the least supportive of censorship
to protect moral standards. Similarly, Traditionalists, who are otherwise
absolutist about free speech regardless of the potential for offense, have a
majority agreeing that censorship is necessary to uphold moral standards.”
Comment: I think that the reason why my answers to these two
questions are the same, whereas Traditionalists and Progressives both tend to flip
to opposite extremes, is that my views are based on ethics, whereas theirs are
based on their preferred politics. Both of them want to be free to put their
views, yet at the same time want to censor views opposed to their own. This tallies
with what I said earlier, that Progressives and Traditionalists are
politicized, and both want to see government support their side in the
values debate. It may also help to explain why, in the researchers’ words, “the
Moderate position tends to lose out to the Traditionalist and Progressive when
it comes to media and political attention.”
Progressives tend towards more liberal positions on law and order, while
Traditionalists have more authoritarian views
Q20.1: “For some crimes the death penalty is the most
appropriate sentence.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor
disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A20.1: Tend to disagree. This places me in the
Moderate camp more than any other.
Comment: For common crimes, for example murder, I am opposed
to the death penalty. The rationale being, that if a miscarriage of justice
occurs in a capital case, the execution cannot be undone. However, I make an
exception for political crimes that kill innocent people. And, in
particular, for warlike aggression against innocent people. This on the grounds
that there can never be any justification for evading responsibility for the
effects of such an action. Vladimir Putin, for example, deserves capital
punishment (once caught) for his invasion of Ukraine. As does Tony Blair for
his actions and words leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Q20.2: “People who break the law should be given
stiffer sentences.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor disagree?
Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A20.2: Strongly disagree. On this matter, I’m in the extreme
Progressive camp.
Comment: First, I do not recognize any unconditional
validity in what people call “the law.” Laws made by politicians are not
necessarily good and just; some, indeed, actively create injustice. As Edmund
Burke put it, “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” I agree with John
Locke’s view that many of the “municipal laws of countries” are no more than
“the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests
put into words.” And such laws are “only so far right as they are founded on
the law of Nature.”
With regard to sentencing, some sentences for crimes are too
harsh, some are too lenient, and others are about right. In the best of all
possible worlds, judges would have discretion to make the severity of the
sentence match as closely as possible the severity of the crime. So, I consider
the point of view that “people who break the law should be given stiffer
sentences” as promoting political interference with what ought to be an
objective justice process.
Q20.3: “People should be allowed to organize public
meetings to protest against the government.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree?
Neither agree nor disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A20.3: Agree, with certain reservations. That puts me
on this issue either with the Moderates, or with the more moderate
Progressives.
Comment: I do not sanction protests which cause, or are
intended to cause, damage to property, or harm or disruption to innocent third
parties. Such as, for example, Extinction Rebellion digging up a lawn at
Trinity College, Cambridge (my alma mater), or Black Lives Matter blocking
an airport runway. But protests, which do not do or intend to do these things, must
always be permissible; including Piers Corbyn’s protests against COVID
restrictions.
All groups believe there are inequalities in wealth and that there is
unfairness between rich and poor
Q21.1: “Ordinary working people get their fair share
of the nation’s wealth.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor
disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A21.1: Strongly disagree. That puts me in the
majorities in all four camps.
Comment: Far too much wealth is taken away by government from
those who earn it, and used in ways which do not benefit those people. The
public sector is notorious for how much money it wastes. “Fat cat” public
sector bosses and powerful, unaccountable “civil servants” and “advisors” get
huge salaries they don’t earn. Government funded universities have become
corrupt, and often work against the interests of those who are forced to
subsidize them. Lucrative government contracts are given out to friends and
cronies, and many of them are done badly. And those that organized these things
get favours back through the “revolving door” system.
Moreover, government favours big businesses over small. And
independent people like me are victimized by bad laws that exclude us from the
market. Bankers and other financial whizz-kids are allowed to gamble with other
people’s money, and then bailed out at the expense of taxpayers if they lose
that money. And don’t even ask about inflation, or government control over
interest rates… The UK economic and financial system, like the political
system, is dishonest, unjust and unsustainable. It is all but kaput.
At a wider level, the perception that inequalities in wealth
are a big problem is not quite the full story. Inequalities in wealth are not
wrong per se. It is injustice in the allocation of wealth that is
the real problem. When people who are able and willing to deliver economic
values – goods, services and skills – to others receive less than they are
worth, and those that do nothing useful to anyone but the establishment and its
political class get rewards out of all proportion to what they put in, that is
very serious injustice.
Worse, the whole idea of taxing incomes tends to entrench
the economic status quo. It favours the already rich, who can live off
capital and don’t need much income, so don’t pay much tax. And it hits hardest of
all those who can earn well, but have little or no capital, so preventing them
from building up any real wealth.
I take the view that what individuals pay for government
ought to be in direct proportion to the benefit they get from it. And if
government does only what it should do – which I see as delivering peace,
tranquillity and justice, and very little more – then what individuals pay for
it, I think, ought to be in direct proportion to their total wealth. John Locke’s
words seem apt: “it is fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection
should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it.”
Q21.2: “There is one law for the rich and one law for
the poor.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor disagree? Tend to
disagree? Strongly disagree?
A21.2: Strongly agree, with one small reservation. The statement would be better phrased as: “There is one law for the politically rich and one law for the politically poor!” That puts me in the majorities in all four groups, and a super-majority among
the Progressives.
Unity and division
Majority of all groups see the UK as divided, while also believing the
media exaggerates the country’s divisions
Q23.1: How united or divided does the UK feel to you
these days? Very united? Somewhat united? Neither united nor divided? Somewhat
divided? Very divided?
A23.1: Somewhat divided. This puts me comfortably
with the majorities in all four groups.
Comment: “United” (applied to anything bigger than a
football club) and “unity” are words that give me conniptions. To me, “unity”
is something that can only be achieved in a top-down, centralized,
command-and-control order; such as the EU, with its motto “Unity
in diversity.” But my desire is for a social organization that is bottom-up,
de-centralized and networked, and allows maximum freedom for every individual.
I want freedom and harmony, not unity!
As to the magnitude of the divisions, they aren’t as big as
in 1642 or 1685 – yet.
Q23.2: In my lifetime… We have been through more
divided times before? We have been through divided times like this before? This
is the most divided we have been?
A23.2: This is the most divided we have been. That
puts me in the majority or near-majority in all four groups.
Comment: The most divided time I can remember in the UK
before the present was the late 1970s. But I was living in Holland at the time,
so didn’t feel the worst of it.
I think, though, that the biggest divisions are not so much
between Traditionalists and Progressives, but between the ordinary people on the one side, and the political establishment and their cronies and hangers-on (including
both the Traditionalists and Progressives among them) on the other.
Q23.3: “The media often makes our country feel more
divided than it really is.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor
disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A23.3: Tend to agree. For the fifth time in a row, I
am comfortably in the mainstream. Very unlike me!
Comment: The media are, of course, prone to
over-sensationalizing everything. But from what I see, I would say that they
tend to emphasize the divisions between different factions, and to obfuscate,
gloss over or miss altogether the divisions between the people and the
establishment. This may be partly because the media today are mostly controlled
by one faction or another. It may also be that many in the media are afraid to
speak out in ways that might be perceived by the establishment as unfavourable
to them and their interests.
The groups all mostly think culture wars are a real and serious problem –
but also that they’re stoked by politicians
Q24.1: “Culture wars are a serious problem for UK
society and politics.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor
disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A24.1: Tend to agree. This time, I’m in the majority
among everyone but the Disengaged.
Comment: The most serious single aspect of the problem is
the suppression of free speech, whether in the interests of Progressive values and
“political correctness,” or of Traditionalist values and “moral standards.” In
contrast to many of the other differences, which are merely matters of opinion,
free speech is not something you can “agree to differ” about.
Q24.2: “Politicians invent or exaggerate culture wars
as a political tactic.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree nor
disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A24.2: Tend to agree. It looks as if I’m in the
mainstream yet again!
Comment: In my view, broad cultural movements tend to begin
in the intellectual class; most of whom are today to be found in universities. If
the ideas of such movements suit the establishment, they will adopt them.
Through control of purse-strings by the state, these ideas then permeate from
the top down into government, its bureaucracies, and everything it funds.
It seems to me that the ideological corruption, which was
seeded in the universities half a century and more ago with ideas like
post-modernism, has spread to virtually all parts of government. This includes
the technocratic “scientists,” “experts” and “advisors,” who today have
considerable power – such as, for example, SAGE. It also includes the BBC. And,
of course, it has spread back into the universities, and corrupted them still
more.
At a certain point, the bad ideas get picked up by the nominally
“independent” media, which begins to spread them to the general population. Some
believe them, others don’t. This leads to a polarization of opinions. Then, the
politicians get involved, thinking there are votes in it for them. Politicians,
in my view, don’t actually invent the “culture wars,” but they do fan those
wars for their own purposes. And individual politicians have played leading
roles in this process. For example, John Selwyn Gummer with the green agenda.
Q24.3: “Culture wars only exist in the media and on
social media, not in real life.” Strongly agree? Tend to agree? Neither agree
nor disagree? Tend to disagree? Strongly disagree?
A24.3: Strongly disagree.
That puts me in a minority, aligned with Progressives and Moderates.
Comment: Culture wars do, very
much, impact real life for people who work in any area where they are being
fought. For example, academics and journal editors opposed to Progressive, alarmist
ideas on “climate change” have been fired, or forced to retire from their
field. They can also negatively impact people who work for companies whose top
brass have come down on a particular side in the culture wars, but whose views
do not align with their bosses’.
Progressives are most likely to feel there is tension between various
groups in society
This question is of a different nature to the previous ones.
Under a number of headings corresponding to different groups, people were asked
whether they thought there is a great deal, or a fair amount, of tension
between these groups. The detailed results are quite difficult to decode, so
I’ll simply quote a couple of the researchers’ comments, and give some brief
thoughts on my own personal views.
“Around 90% of Progressives think relations are strained
between Leavers and Remainers, rich and poor, the socially liberal and those
with more traditional values, and people who support different political
parties. By contrast, Traditionalists are most likely to think there is tension
between different religions (65%), different ethnicities (77%) and between
immigrants and people born in the UK (83%).”
Q25. Is there a great deal, or a fair amount, of
tension between the following groups in the UK?
·
Leavers and Remainers? Yes, a great deal. This has
been, and indeed still is, an all-or-nothing issue, on which neither side is willing
to give any ground at all. From a Leaver point of view, the Remainer side have behaved
atrociously ever since the issue was first aired.
·
Rich and poor? Not in my area.
·
Those with more socially liberal, progressive
ideas and those with more traditional values? Not in those terms. For me, the major
tension is between those that want to use government to force their particular
values on to others, and those of us who just want to live and let live.
·
People who support different political parties?
It isn’t something I often even talk about.
·
The metropolitan élite and ordinary working people? Yes, a great deal.
The green agenda, in particular, is being driven and supported principally by a
metropolitan élite that
have no concern at all for its effects on ordinary people.
·
Different social classes? Not in my area.
·
Immigrants and people born in the UK? Not in my
area.
·
Different ethnicities? Not in my area.
·
Old and young? Not that I detect.
·
Different religions? Not in my area. We have a
mix of Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, agnostics and atheists. But for me, religion
simply isn’t a big deal.
·
Those in cities and those outside of cities.
Yes, very much so. In particular, the metropolitan élite are trying to force on to everyone transport policies
that simply can’t work for ordinary people in suburbs or the countryside.
·
Men
and women? Not that I detect; apart from a few radical feminists, of course.
·
Those
with a university education and those without a university education? Again,
not something I often talk about. I certainly don’t often brag about my
education!
Information bubbles
The researchers say: “Progressives are the most likely of
the groups to say that people they come into contact with share their political
views. And all groups perceive greater agreement with close friends and family
than with people they interact with on-line or their neighbours.”
There is one question, asked about each of five different
groups of people you know. It has the general form: When it comes to political
issues, do most of <group name> agree with you, is it about 50:50, or do
most disagree with you? I did, however, find that this was not a wide enough
range of possible answers for someone like me; so, where necessary, I have
given an answer not in the list.
Q27.1: People you interact with on-line. A27.1:
It’s about 50:50. That could put me in any group except Progressives.
Comment: The range of political views on Internet blogs are determined
by the politics of the host(s). As a hard-core libertarian, I usually have no
problem interacting at either Traditionalist or Progressive blogs, because my
views mix elements of both. And I quite often go out of my way to explore the
ideas of those who disagree with me on one issue or many; if only to understand
the weaknesses in their case!
As to social media, I don’t do Fish-hook or Twatter.
Q27.2: Colleagues. A27.2: I don’t discuss
politics with co-workers, except very occasionally in the pub afterwards. As
one who has strong and unconventional political views, I don’t want to risk alienating
people I need to co-operate with.
Q27.3: Neighbours. A27.3: The things I discuss
with neighbours are pretty much all related to the management and maintenance
of the block of flats we live in.
Q28.1: Close friends. A28.1: It’s about 50:50.
That places me as Disengaged, or possibly Moderate.
Q28.2: Family. A28.2: I don’t have much of a
family any more. We are few and geographically dispersed, so we meet only very
rarely.
Views of the “other side” in culture war debates
The researchers say: “All groups tend to have negative views
of the other side in culture war debates – although Progressives have
particularly cold feelings towards their ‘opponents’ on the issues of Black
Lives Matter, trans rights and Brexit. Compared with the other groups,
Traditionalists are not particularly negative about the other side on most
issues. While they do have the worst opinion of people who are ashamed of the
British empire, their feelings are not particularly extreme. Moderates are most
positive about their political opponents. All groups have similarly negative
views on people who take the opposing position on COVID restrictions.”
Had I been on the MORI panel, I would probably have refused
to answer this set of questions, on the grounds that I judge individuals on how
they behave, not on the views they profess or who they associate with. So, I’ll
give just a few brief thoughts on my views of those on the other side…
Q30.1: Politically? A30.1: Anyone who votes
for any of the mainstream political parties has, to put it gently,
failed to think through what they are doing and its consequences.
Q30.2: Brexit? A30.2: I do not criticize
people simply because they wanted to remain in the EU. (Though I will ask them:
“If you liked the EU so much, why didn’t you emigrate to it?”) Nevertheless, I
do take an extremely negative view of:
·
Those that in the 1970s misled people in the UK
into agreeing to join what they told us was an economic project, but they must
have known would become a political one.
·
Those that, from the early 1990s when the
political nature of the European project became obvious, up to 2013 when the
first tentative commitments to a referendum were mooted, failed to offer people
in the UK an opportunity to withdraw from the EU.
·
Those that from 2016 tried to scupper Brexit,
after the people of the UK had voted for it.
·
Those that continue to proselytize and agitate
for the UK to return to the EU.
Q31.1: Black Lives Matter? A31.1: This isn’t
one of my hot-button issues, so I don’t much care what people think about it.
As long, of course, as they don’t try to force or to shame me, or anyone else,
into showing support for aspects of BLM that we don’t agree with.
Q31.2: Trans rights? A31.2: I take essentially
the same position here as I do on BLM.
Q32.1: COVID restrictions? A32.1: It’s
entirely up to you. If you show hatred for me, I’ll end up hating you. If
you’ll live and let live, we can get on just fine.
Q32.2: The British empire? A32.2: Let’s just
agree to differ, shall we?
To sum up
I thought that, rather than bother to craft a summary
section, I’d just quote a few of the most salient points I have gleaned from
this exercise.
1. If
a three-group structure had amalgamated the Moderates and the Disengaged, for
example, the “take home message” should have been of a disaffected, apolitical
majority stuck, through no choice of their own, in between two roughly equal groups,
both of them politicized and neither of them friendly. In Benjamin Franklin’s
phrase, “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”
2. Both
Progressives and Traditionalists are politicized; they both want to see government
support their side in the values debate. Whereas I do not see it as a
valid function of government to impose any particular set of values on anyone.
3. Both
of them [Traditionalists and Progressives] want to be free to put their views,
yet at the same time want to censor views opposed to their own. This… may also
help to explain why, in the researchers’ words, “the Moderate position tends to
lose out to the Traditionalist and Progressive when it comes to media and
political attention.”
4. I
think, though, that the biggest divisions are not so much between
Traditionalists and Progressives, but between the ordinary people on the one side,
and the political establishment and their cronies and hangers-on (including
both the Traditionalists and Progressives among them) on the other.
5. The
media are, of course, prone to over-sensationalizing everything. But from what
I see, I would say that they tend to emphasize the divisions between different
factions, and to obfuscate, gloss over or miss altogether the divisions between
the people and the establishment.
6. Free
speech is not something you can “agree to differ” about.
7. It
seems to me that the ideological corruption, which was seeded in the
universities half a century and more ago with ideas like post-modernism, has
spread to virtually all parts of government. This includes the technocratic
“scientists,” “experts” and “advisors,” who today have considerable power –
such as, for example, SAGE. It also includes the BBC. And, of course, it has
spread back into the universities, and corrupted them still more.
8. For
me, the major tension is between those that want to use government to force
their particular values on to others, and those of us who just want to live and
let live.
[3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0095798420930932
