I’ve been getting more angry in my politics. In 2015, it was the post-coalition Tory savaging of the low paid, last year it was Vote Leave’s deceits, this year the hypocrisy of Corbyn in supporting welfare cuts.
But this week I was brought up short, when told I should stop looking for the speck in the eyes of my political opponents.
That stung. That section of the Bible has influenced me enormously. As a teenager, I memorised most of it. I constantly think of the impossible standards it sets, try to follow them, and of course dismally fail.
I think for Liberal Democrats, whatever our views, the influence of the teachings of Jesus runs deep. There are reasons for our reputation as the ‘nice’ party, perhaps through our nonconformist roots or our British culture.
But I have a love-hate relationship with that niceness. In the 2017 election, the Tories supported £9bn welfare cuts, Corbyn £7bn, we campaigned for no cuts. Yet, when Corbyn supporters claim the moral high ground on welfare, we let them.
Sometimes when faced with an obvious hypocrisy, it is best to ignore it. Matthew 5:22 says it can even be wrong just to get angry. It’s hard, but the teachings of Jesus were never meant to be easy.
Yet is this what the Bible as a whole always calls for, for Christians, or indeed for any who base their morality on the teachings of Jesus?
When Jesus saw traders ripping off the poor in the temple, he got angry. Was he right to? If so, maybe there are situations where anger is a good thing. After all, if neuroscience shows that anger is an intrinsic part of us, maybe it’s there for a reason.
I think there is a clue in the quote about the speck in our brother’s eye. It says: ”why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” I take this as a call to reflect on our own failings, not that we should never criticise. After all, in some situations, Jesus actually suggested criticism.
Is this lack of self-reflection something we Liberal Democrats are guilty of? Not from where I’m sitting. In the private members forum of LibDemVoice, at times we’ve done little but agonize over the Coalition. Most of us are acutely aware of how, for the sake of a stable government and to reduce a record peace-time deficit, our party supported some awful welfare cuts.
Were those actions justified? Some will feel there was no justification, and perhaps, if they remained members of the party while it happened, agonize over their own culpability. Others feel it was wrong, but a lesser wrong than breaking up the government, and the consequences that might then follow. Privately, we’ve argued endlessly. At times I fear, there’s been little self-reflection, and a lot of pointing at the specks in each others eyes.
But isn’t there a point where we need to put this behind us? We have reflected on it. In our 2017 manifesto, we allocated money to reverse a number of these cuts, including the ‘bedroom tax’.
The country now has a Leader of the Opposition who claims to fight for social justice, yet has supported £7bn more welfare cuts. Surely, we have a duty to provide a progressive alternative. If we don’t, won’t it be like seeing crooks swindle the poor in the temple, but being too polite to do anything about it?
So, if we are to provide that alternative, how should we go about it?
Too many politicians use personal attacks as a way to undermine their opponents: such as when they tried to destroy Ed Miliband’s image with a video of him with a bacon sandwich; or Theresa May’s, when she made a speech with an incessant cough; or, to my shame, when I laughed, on first reading the libel about Cameron’s supposed activities at university.
Instead, we should point to what is important. Vince showed us how this can be done, when he stood up for the PM, while making serious points about the disloyalty and incompetence of some of her colleagues.
We all make mistakes; we all have planks in our eyes, all too visibly in the case of some of our past political leaders. Before we throw accusations at others, we need to reflect. But, once we have done so, we should not abdicate our responsibility to fight for what we believe is right.
Did I reflect enough on my own short-comings, before I recently attacked the hypocrisy of Jeremy Corbyn in Labour Uncut? It’s hard to be sure, but I think I did.
And that doesn’t mean we can’t attack the individual at all. Some may argue that I should attack Labour, rather than Corbyn himself. But that would be to attack the Labour MPs who are as appalled as I am. And much of the problem is the cult of personality around Corbyn which, if you like, raises him up like a “false god”.
They say he provides ‘straight talking, honest politics’, yet not only does he break his promise to reverse past child tax credit cuts, but he supports future cuts. He claimed he would bring in a ‘kinder, gentler politics’. He’s delivered a culture of antisemitism, of misogyny against female Labour opponents, and has appointed as Shadow Chancellor a man who, only five years ago, celebrated rioting.
Don’t we have a duty to warn the country of that?
But we also need to keep our passion under tight control. If we stray from the facts and descend into angry personal abuse, we start on the very path that led to bodyguards for Laura Kuenssberg at the Labour conference.
* George Kendall is the acting chair of the Social Democrat Group. He writes in a personal capacity.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
DWP imposing misery on carers
At last! Proof that BBC East's Joint Account quiz existed
US outperformance isn't *all* about Tech
Mark Frankel
Jack Nicholls
Adam
Jonathan Brown
28 Comments
George,
the Golden rule is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you”. (Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12).
Say what you mean and mean what you say. If a person or institution is deserving of criticism then we should do so unresevedely, just as if we are deserving of criticism we should reflect on that criticism and consider how we can do better.
We tend to get angry when we see injustice and feel we are ignored. The problem with anger is we lash out (Brexit anyone) and not always in the right direction. I think we should try to take the following advice “Don’t get angry, get even”. So hold those that promise the unattainable to account , but be aware they may not be liars just a little delusional (and we all do delusion one way or another just look at football fans). Now if only i could take my own advice when it comes to brave Brexiteers.
Corbyn simply cares for the section of society which falls into his “public sector / organised labour / enemies of corporate power” narrative. Which means that extremely highly paid RMT and ASLEF rail militants, well paid militant black cabbies, upper middle class doctors and NHS clinical professionals, highly paid police, fire brigade and armed forces personnel and well paid teachers and prison officers are more important to him than many of the genuine poor if they are not part of his coalition of voters. The genuine poor are not in the least bit interested in free university tuition, nationalised industries, increased trade union power, increased pay for police, staff on trains, more wind power, opposition to fracking, opposition to free trade / privatisation / outsourcing and globalisation, opposition to foreign ownership of property nor preserving the pensions of well paid public sector workers.
Far better someone has a job with Uber / Deliveroo / Sports Direct / G4S / Ryanair, than to be regulated out of existence or priced out of the market – which is what Corbynism will achieve.
I value and very much welcome the sentiments of George,
I think the reaction he had to a recent headline, his actual proposal not as bad as the headline, was good for him, as it made him up his game as our , shall we call him,Social Democrat in Chief !
It is proven that laughter is far better for us than anger, which is probably why over some many posts I have rather taken to the style , if not always the substance , of the postings of David Raw, who , as with me, seems to do and know , humour, well, and we sarcastically disagree .
It is why another , of similar vintage, I rate , is too irate , for me, the noble Lord Greaves, who sometimes seems to leave his sense of humour in his ermine, not too readily to hand !
That said, I would concur with all of them , there is a lot to be angry about, and George touches the surface, but I share with Mr Corbyn, a sense of indignation.The stae of our NHS alone makes me very angry!
Just as I share with our Mr Stimpson, as we can see here, a sense of humour, as I think,partly, at least, surely, I mean, he must be joking !!!
Simpson
On Corbyn you are simply wrong, I don’t doubt he cares for the poor, I rather doubt his prescription to cure poverty will work but I don’t doubt his good intentions. Some politicians are in it for themselves he isn’t one of them. It doesn’t make him less dangerous as the road to hell is paved with good intentions but to attack him for something he isn’t doesn’t help and dare I say it isn’t fair.
@ George,
The problem is that the Great British Public public generally agrees with you on economic matters. So, the worse the economy gets, the greater will be the public demand to have ever more welfare cuts. Because ‘we can’t afford them any more’. ‘We have to cut our coat according to our cloth’. ‘Neither a borrower nor a lender be’ etc etc etc
I’m sure I don’t have to explain neoliberal economic thinking to you! And that’s what all politicians are up against. On the one hand, they want to be honest with the electorate, but on the other they want their votes. It’s rather as if most of the electorate thinks the world is flat. But you know it’s spherical. So what do you do? Tell them they are all stupid and lose their votes?
The answer is no.
We should try to ensure we accurately criticise other parties and their policies and not write that the Labour Party “supported £7bn more welfare cuts” rather than wanting to reverse £5.345 billion less of them than us.
Tit for tat doesn’t work in this age of the clever meme or FB viral post. It also doesn’t work for us, post-coalition.
We need a new thoughtful way of engaging with the public generally, and yes voters particularly, that doesn’t make a ‘holier than them’ approach that people just won’t stack up. Labour introduced tuition fees, the Tories hikes them – and we got the blame because some of our MPs went along with it. Life’s not fair, so move on …
@Michael BG
Thanks for your comment, it illustrates what I’m saying rather well.
If I followed your approach, I wouldn’t be able to say of the Tories:
“They are putting party interest before country, and have gone for a hard Brexit which will have devastating consequences for many people.”
Instead, I might have to say:
“The Conservatives say that the Referendum was an instruction from the people to stop freedom of movement and leave the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. They also say that the form of Brexit they have chosen will result in more money available for public services, and greater long-term prosperity to the British people. I disagree.”
Both statements are accurate, I prefer the first. But, if you think Lib Dems should go for the second, you’re free to that opinion.
In terms of Corbyn, he has supported the implementation of cuts that have not yet been implemented. That means he isn’t just not reversing them.
For example, while you can say that Labour planning to continue the welfare freeze is not reversing a Tory policy, I think it’s more accurate to call it a future cut. Though at times, for the sake of keeping the English simple, I do sometimes refer to our policy as reversing cuts.
In one way, Corbyn continuing the freeze is worse than the original freeze that Osborne brought in, because inflation is a lot higher now. So continuing the freeze will bring about bigger cuts in welfare than Osborne originally planned.
@frankie
I agree. But it’s not that Corbyn doesn’t care about the poor, it’s that he doesn’t care enough.
If he did care enough, then he and his team would have prioritised not cutting welfare over expanding targeted services to the middle class. I presume he chose the latter because the socialist ideal of universal service provsion is more important to him than ensuring there is food on the table for the poor. (Although it’s also possible that he cynically followed what polling said would get him the most votes – a calculation that seems to have been correct)
It could be that this is all ignorance and incompetence. But that too is a sign of not caring enough. He’s had a lifetime in the Labour party to discover who is an expert and who is not. There are plenty in Labour who could have warned him about the regressive nature of his policies, but clearly he’s chosen not to listen to them.
I find this deeply worrying. Perhaps a Corbyn government would not go ahead with these planned cuts. Though of course that would mean breaking some of his election promises. But if he can get something like this so fundamentally wrong, what else would he get wrong if he ever became Prime Minister?
The current government are showing us, in the Brexit negotiations, how lack of principle and incompetence can do serious harm to the country. Will Corbyn be any better?
@JoeB
Often, I think it’s best to criticise in private and praise in public.
So, for example, if there’s the option, it’s often better to correct someone in an email or a private message, than in public.
But when it comes to someone who has a serious chance of succeeding in becoming Prime Minister, then there are good reasons to hold them to public account.
The tone you use is a choice. If they are someone in my own party who I want to see get elected, I will go for private criticism, or, in extremis, I might phrase my public criticism in a way that will be the least damaging.
If I think someone’s election would do great harm, then I try to make public criticism in a way that will be most effective in warning the public of the harm they will cause. Often the best way to do that is to use direct easily understood language, which projects emotion as well as reason.
@Frankie
I agree that anger can be very destructive and counterproductive.
Some Remainers regularly call anyone who voted Leave racists and idiots. I can’t think of anything more likely to make people dig their heels in, and continue to support Brexit. It’s also simply incorrect. I believe my Brexit-supporting friends and relations are mistaken, but they are not racists or idiots.
However, anger is part of our psychological make-up. When I want to get even, but deny that I’m angry, I’m probably kidding myself.
I ‘d like to be self-aware enough to realise when I am angry, and then to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. It may be important to redirect the anger away from the person, towards what they are doing. (“Love the sinner, hate the sin” as the saying goes)
Sometimes, passion and anger are words for the same thing, and passion can be vital to give us the drive to get things done. What is vital though, is that the anger is always controlled, that we keep reflecting on whether it is still appropriate, and if it is not, that we have the self-control and self-awareness to step back, and become more conciliatory.
That’s something I hope we in the Social Democrat Group can do. As we try to engage with social democrats in the Labour party, hopefully, there will be some who used to be our political enemies, who can become our friends.
” for the sake of a stable government and to reduce a record peace-time deficit, our party supported some awful welfare cuts.”
This is economic ignorance. The national budget is not like a household budget; the effect of reducing government deficits (all else equal) is to increase household debt. There was no need whatever for the welfare cuts; sensible economic management would have increased government spending on useful infrastructure, housing etc.
The magic money tree seems to only exist when giving “quantitative easing” (aka printing money) for the banks. Oh, and to bribe other politicians.
What was wrong with the coalition was the naive idea by some at the top of the party that the Tories were in any sense trustworthy. ” That looks like it’ll be unpopular, send a LibDem onto the Today programme to defend it “
George Kendall 14th Oct ’17 – 8:10am………..I agree. But it’s not that Corbyn doesn’t care about the poor, it’s that he doesn’t care enough….
You chased me across several threads to get me to answer a question…
I’ll repeat here what I said there…
“As to your specific point on Labour reversing ‘cuts’ I wish it had gone further but, considering the attacks from LDV, about paying for what he HAS announced, the extra £billions per year would just draw more ‘unaffordable’ comments..
What upsets me is, instead of supporting Labour’s ‘good bits’ (housing, education, childcare, etc.) you are demanding we get angry with Corbyn…
As for accusing him of hypocrisy??? We are now promoting ourselves as the ‘guardians of the poor’ and attacking Corbyn’s policies on benefits, … Very Easy, when reduced to 12 MPs with no hope of any major influence, to promise to reverse the cuts we supported when we had 57 MPs…
A better memory and a little more humility would not go amiss
Stimpson – the to suggest that Corbyn only supports the ‘hit list’ of those in the professions you seemingly have issues with is just pure fantasy. Corbyn is one of the most steadfast campaigners in tackling poverty.
Presumably you liberal (illiberal more like) labelling of all railway employees as militant says much more about you than Corbyn.
Given that public sector workers suffered year-on-year reduction in their standard of living under the Coalition Government which Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg seemed proud to lecture them as to the need to take their share of the pain (excluding MP’s of course) beggars belief.
Corbyn at 43%,LibDems at 8% – there’s a reason for this.
@ George Kendall
Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. What I was quoting is being presented as a fact, but it is not true. The Labour Party did not support and has not supported in Parliament “£7bn more welfare cuts”. However during the general election they proposed reversing £5.345 billion less cuts than us. The point is the first is not true and the second is.
However your examples are not facts, both are opinions. In the first you are giving an opinion and presenting it as factual, however most people will understand that you are giving an opinion, even though you haven’t used the words “I think”. In the second you present what Conservatives hope will be the outcome and state you disagree.
Not doing something is never the same as doing the opposite. This is why I have a problem with your accuracy. “Supported” is a past action that can be checked with the historical record. “Reversing” in this context is a future action and can only be checked against what is being proposed. You could say that a future Labour government would be supporting £5.345 billion more cuts that a future Liberal Democrat one.
I think using being passionate rather than getting angry is a much better word choice.
@ Jenny Barnes
“The national budget is not like a household budget; … There was no need whatever for the welfare cuts; sensible economic management would have increased government spending on useful infrastructure, housing etc.”
You are correct. Sensible politicians would not have thought that the UK was like Greece. It seems very strange that in 1929 the Liberal Party understood that the economic consensus was wrong, but in 2010 the Liberal Democrats went along with the incorrect economic consensus having not learnt the lessons of the 1930’s.
@ expats
We are not promising to reverse all of the welfare cuts made during the Coalition years, I think only the bedroom tax and the cuts to LHA, less than £1 billion.
In another thread you wrote, “On 21st June 2015 George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith proudly announced, “In all, the last government legislated for £21bn of welfare savings”— £21 billion was a Treasury estimate of the effect of all the decisions taken since the 2010 election. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, using more up-to-date figures, estimated that the policy changes actually saved £17 billion”.
David Orbison:
Rail employees in the unions are militants. The rail unions are highly illberal with their attacks on foreign investors and foreign state rail networks – typical Faragist economic nationalism. All of the rail unions repeatedly strike with high majorities to do so, despite the fact that Thameslink trains run perfectly safely with 12 coaches on very busy stations at the London rush hour, with no guard and with no station staff, with drivers doing everything. The reason for the strikes is simply arrogant militants out in the sticks up north, the midlands or in the west country who want a job for life and no liability or responsibility and to keep their little fifedoms stitched as they are – despite London showing us how safe modern railways are, whilst the money rolls in from the overcharged commuter – and they paint foreign governments and Chris Grayling as the big bad evil people.
Public sector work is a calling and is not a get rich quick scheme. Pensions are far better in the public sector so it is not like public sector workers aren’t doing well long term. Police, teachers, fire brigades, squaddies and so on are not in poverty. They are just annoyed because they have had to tighten their belts and have missed out on an extra holiday this year or new car.
Corbyn is on 43% because he has a coalition of public sector and militant trade unionists supplemented by 1) upper middle class millienials who think they should be entitled to a house, a final salary pension and no debts, 2) Red UKIP voting working class militants who are effectively right wing nationalists who support a bit of nationalisation, hate free trade and want the state to bully the rich, foreign investors and corporations, 3) the anti globalisation / SWP mob.
The Lib Dems have 8% because largely prosperous western citizens in many nations are railing against liberal democracy and either electing extreme leftists or extreme nationalists, because they are unwilling to work with globalisation and free trade and wish to shut the door on the world – thinking a romantic view of national service, the dog licence, a world pre-BBC2 and beat bobbies, no immigration and / or nationalised industries, credit unions, working mens clubs soapbox militants, Made In Britain, bus conductors and traditional hard graft will somehow return. They don’t like the message that Clegg has because it challenges their prejudices, and scares them.
The short answer to the Question is Yes, we should be a lot more angry with both Tories & Labour & we should have more confidence in ourselves & in Liberal Values.
Stimpson – “THEIR prejudices”???? Lol
Paul Barker, Unfortunately, the problem is that many of those posting here, had a ridiculous amount of confidence in ourselves & in Liberal Values between 2010 and 2015, when our party was being destroyed by a weak and arrogant leadership in coalition. Indeed some totally refused to get angry with our leader at the time, even as good Lib Dems were getting massacred time and again because of decisions made under his leadership.
People have spoken about Bible teachings about specks and planks in eyes, and people have referred to how they have considered it. However, the one part very few refer to is their unwillingness to face up to the catastrophe when it was happening and something could have been done about it. Now, with the damage done and Tories and Labour rampant over areas that were recently ours, what is there left to do but get angry much too late and with the opponents that were let in, because it hurts too much to face up to the big nothing that was done at the time.
@David Evans
In many ways you are right & I put my hand up as one those who put far too much faith in the Loyalty of “Our” Voters, a Loyalty which we didnt try to build on a National level.
However, we didnt behave like a Party of Government, we acted like supplicants not like a Party who had as much right to be in power as The Tories did.
I think we are rebuilding on a firmer basis this time but we cerainly should not enter Coalition again unless we get the leading role, ie The PM a Libdem.
Michael BG 14th Oct ’17 – 3:21pm
@ expats………….We are not promising to reverse all of the welfare cuts made during the Coalition years, I think only the bedroom tax and the cuts to LHA, less than £1 billion.
In another thread you wrote, “On 21st June 2015 George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith proudly announced, “In all, the last government legislated for £21bn of welfare savings”— £21 billion was a Treasury estimate of the effect of all the decisions taken since the 2010 election. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, using more up-to-date figures, estimated that the policy changes actually saved £17 billion”…………..
It’s satisfying to see that some of my contributions are read, even if not by those they were aimed at..
What those comments show is, to paraphrase George Kendall (14th Oct ’17 – 8:10am),”But it’s not that LibDems don’t care about the poor, it’s that we don’t care enough.”
When we were in a position to help, we didn’t; now we are powerless, we wring our hands in sympathy…
@expats
If your words were aimed at me, don’t worry, I read them. I even posted a reply here:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/in-defence-of-tax-credits-we-must-be-the-clear-antipoverty-party-55482.html#comment-455335
I always go by that trusted adage dont get angry just get even . if people want to believe in jam tomorrow and that its always someone else who will pay the bill there is not much you can do to burst their bubble .likewise if people are so selfish and are only interested in their own personal wealth and never mind about others their not likely to vote Liberal Democrat . We need to target those who feel uncomfortable about what they see around them like for example services and jobs under threat because of Brexit ,Growing homelessness and housing insecurity because we are not building enough homes that are really affordable .Schools sending out begging letters to buy basic equipment or short staffed and classes overcrowded . This is drip ,drip, politics sure and constant messages that our politics offers a better way .
getting angry won’t help. My impression is Labour especially are trying to side us out of any discussion. It would be so much more convenient for them if we did not exist. We need to be assertive and combine the other two parties. They are also playing a double edged strategy playing to both remainers and brexiteers. We need to stick to our values particularly of honesty and consistency. Being positive rather than constantly attacking them is also what the electorate want to see.
Peter Hirst agree with you Peter but it doesnt do any harm to mention the preamble of our constitution which underlines our values of liberty,freedom and an open society .and reflect on Corbyns state socialism which undermines individual liberty ,accelerates state ownership ,and insists that we all become enslaved by conformity at someone elses expense.
@Neil Sandison @Peter Hirst
Losing control of your anger is almost always bad. But having no anger at all, when something is done that will cause profound harm to people, shows a lack of passion. It makes the public think we don’t really care.
We need to project a passionate commitment to what we are doing.
Dry intellectual arguments about the figures of our opponents will send the electorate to sleep. It’ll send us to sleep. We need to project emotion. That’s how we’ll excite our membership, how we’ll motivate ourselves to keep going.
Call it passion if you like. But we need to stop being so defensive, and start confidently and passionately putting our case. And, in my opinion, where we’ll dealing with dishonesty and callous indifference to those in poverty, a little anger wouldn’t go amiss.
George Kendall The best way to instill passion within the party and support social democratic principles is to promote with pride a refreshed social market economy that meets some of the challenges facing our asset stripped services . Please note this is not social capitalism which is a corruption espoused by the tories but encourages the economic wealth of the nation to be put to constructive use to enhance and improve our social and community services .We dont need to take industry into state ownership or privatise public services to make them more efficient .We need new models of social ownership and stake holder/share holder control so that they become more responsive to their customers and less remote their end users.