Author Archives: Phil Craxford

If I hear the phrase ‘political elite’ one more time I swear I shall go pop!

By Phil Craxford | Sat 8th October 2016 - 11:45 am

On the face of it, it seems an innocuous enough phrase. A simple telling it like it is without being too specific or a way of summarising all those professional politicians and others in the orbit of government. It’s handy when the column inches are tight. So why am I so vexed with this now? After all the phrase and the theory behind it isn’t a new one as it has been around since the middle of the 20^th century. Why now?

Because in the last few years its usage has been subtly usurped and now it hides a whole series of insinuations that undermine many of the core principles not just of those who read this here but of anyone of any political stripe who takes what democracy gives us to heart.

I’ve heard it used more recently but here is a good example of how the phrase has been corrupted. Nigel Lawson (a member of the political elite if ever there was one) on Question Time.

A lady asks a question to do with issues around Europe.
Nigel Lawson responds by blaming the ‘political elite’.
The lady’s question is based on her understanding of a binary ‘us and them’ scenario but surreptitiously his response has changed this to a trinary ‘you and I against them’ condition.
He then goes on to state his own opinion.
He and the lady nod as if agreeing although their interests are poles apart.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged political elite | 23 Comments

Race you to the top

By Phil Craxford | Mon 18th July 2016 - 9:05 am

Good news! There is optimism in the air – unfortunately it seems to be emanating from the Leave camp.

Is that good news?

Paradoxically yes. Leave campaigners are now in effect held by the political equivalent of the South Indian monkey trick. They can’t let go of whatever Brexit nut they grabbed hold of in the tree because, to let go would mean they no longer have the certainty they believed they voted for. They got to this position because the referendum was really only half a decision. Coming to a crossroads and rejecting one route is not the same as deciding which route to take. The Brexit camp understood this. To win they employed a number of techniques most notably what I’d term ‘future curtailment’, i.e. reducing the argument to one point of direct concern to the voter and then ‘falsely’ attributing its negative effects to the EU. And, at no point did they offer an alternative. Many voters just simply filled in the blanks with whatever they thought most attractive to their world view and now they are waiting for that world to take substance (If only they could get that nut out).