The culture war against wokism has been Boris Johnson’s creation and he is being caught out for it.

Last night on FB, local page, there was a lively discussion about some very expensive new houses being built. Several people claimed this was due to asylum seekers.



Please, GillT57, have you any idea what the rationale was for that statement...

Yes as much as it grieves me the left have been part of it as well, I think in addition social media promotes tribalism, I think the division that led to Brexit was partly caused by communities being ignored and in many cases despised for years, there was also a failure by those who supported immigration to be able to show the benefits of immigration and the benefits of the EU.

The talk amongst Labour supporters and activists is just as bad though, all this talk about the 'Metropolitan Elite' versus Northern 'working class'. It is all about division, distraction; if you can alienate people from each other. Last night on FB, local page, there was a lively discussion about some very expensive new houses being built. Several people claimed this was due to asylum seekers.

Yes, I think that happened, without a doubt, and I think that that was part of the reason behind some of the Brexit vote. I also think that Brexit made divisions worse, not least by the way that the Remain campaign equated a Leave vote with racism and a low level of education that allowed Leavers to be manipulated.

I don't think that it was the cause of the divisions between age groups, or the resentment of 'experts', though. I think that those things have been created quite deliberately, so that people are too busy defending their own corners to band together and see the whole picture.

Doodledog

So what do you think caused the division then?

I think it was years of tory 'austerity', which caused a recession, cut vital services and continued the tory narrative of the 'undeserving'. People with nothing to lose are ripe for manipulation.

So what do you think caused the division then?

I think Brexit was the result of a certain type of division not the cause if it.

Galaxy

He didn't start that split, that was already there, it's too easy to blame one person I think. Believe me if I thought blaming Johnson was the answer I would go for it, but I honestly dont think it is.

I'm not saying he did. I think it started with Brexit, which of course Johnson did not support until he saw that it would benefit him, but he (and Cummings when he was in favour) exploited it and have stoked it where they could.

He didn't start that split, that was already there, it's too easy to blame one person I think. Believe me if I thought blaming Johnson was the answer I would go for it, but I honestly dont think it is.

Wanted to know the history of woke, wondered if anyone was interested,
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woke-meaning-word-history-b1790787.html.

PippaZ

If he successfully splits the country by picking up something that vaguely existed already, he is responsible for the outcome.

He has attempted to find groups that can be "othered" which is dispicable and one of the first rules in the "how to become a dictator" list.

Agreed 100%.

I think it is scary the way people are willing to turn on one another and get really nasty, just because someone disagrees with them.

Of course people have always had differing views on politics and religion etc, but either it's me getting older or people are getting ruder.

We've even been fed a vocabulary, with insults like 'remoaners' on one side and 'gammon' on the other, then all the vilifying of 'experts' and 'boffins'. Then the 'intergenerational conflict' that lies about one generation ('millennials') suffering at the hands of another ('boomers'), and the idea that people on benefits are 'scroungers'. Covid brought 'covidiots' - a term to use against those who dealt with the pandemic differently.

During the first lockdown I found it shocking that neighbours were so keen to 'shop' one another for apparent infringements of rules, or for buying 'non-essential' items, and that those who didn't take part in the organised clapping (which would now called 'gesture politics') were shamed on social media.

It seems like a perfect storm - divide people into manufactured groups, with names to differentiate them, so pretty much all of us will fall into one group or another, and can be picked off in our turn, then convince everyone that life should be made difficult for those in groups different from our own.

As a nation we have bought willingly into it all. I hope we turn back before it is too late.

If he successfully splits the country by picking up something that vaguely existed already, he is responsible for the outcome.

He has attempted to find groups that can be "othered" which is dispicable and one of the first rules in the "how to become a dictator" list.

Yes I agree Galaxy, he is responsible for a lot of things that are wrong in this country, but the war on woke, whatever that means, has been exploited by him (unsuccesfully) but not started by him.

I hold Johnson responsible for many things, all of them utterly terrible but I am not sure I hold him responsible for the war on woke, I think he saw something happening and exploited it, it's pretty much how he has behaved throughout his time in politics. I think the culture wars or whatever you want to call them are much too complicated to be lain at the feet of one man.

GillT57

"Even the Foreign Aid budget cuts are not the populist success that he thought they would be; apart from the usual suspects who are comfortable with children dying as long as they are foreign children, most people are horrified at what it is doing to the people who need the aid, and to the country's image on the international stage."

This reminds me of when I rattled tins for Save the Children. Many people wouldn't donate because they thought all the money collected was to help foreigners.

I don't think Johnson is as popular as he thinks he is. Back benchers are giving him a headache, senior ones especially, and he has a small coterie of yes men and women who will stick the knife in his back when the time is right. Even his much lauded 'Freedom Day' is a damp squib, not the triumph he expected, but a series of warnings from medical experts, politicians and others. Even the red top tabloids ae finding it hard to hurrah anything he does. They ( he and Patel in particular) have read the country wrong. The football saga is still ongoing, and the suggestion that one of the country's best loved charities and bravest volunteer group, the RNLI could be prosecuted for following Maritime Law is a step too far. Even the Foreign Aid budget cuts are not the populist success that he thought they would be; apart from the usual suspects who are comfortable with children dying as long as they are foreign children, most people are horrified at what it is doing to the people who need the aid, and to the country's image on the international stage.

Matt Hancock is looking for a job I believe.

Dinahmo

Deeda Not a lot. Except that there are other choices.

That is true Dinahmo. Often people have not been that well known or seen as PM until they get there. Stepping into the role will then bring out a character that we have not known. Sadly, our most recent experience is not one to be lauded. You can't be a PM before you are PM; you can be statesmanlike. Johnson never was.

If you look at recent polls, his popularity is not that great either. Also, you can hear the threads pulling apart if you listen carefully. I heard an interview about the suggested new food policy this morning on Today. The Tory MP answered one question with "I don't think that is the Prime Minister's policy, It was certainly not what was in our manifesto". I'm not sure where the poor chap has been this week. The Conservative manifesto is dead and was dead on the day Johnson became PM. All he wants is the power to put his libertarian dictator style policies through. His party have not yet got the guts to stop him.

Deedaa

What does it say about the country if Johnson is the only choice for the near future?

What does it say? It says that we are a democratic country who holds regular General Elections, at which the electorate can choose the next government.....which you already know so can’t see why you need to ask.
Many people voted for him as the only viable way to keep Corbyn out.It worked.
We can vote for who we like at the next GE.
The Conservative Party can change their PM if they want to or if there is a vote of no confidence in him. That won’t happen anytime soon in my view.

Much as I’d like to see Johnson gone, I think Gove would be even worse.

Deeda Not a lot. Except that there are other choices.

What does it say about the country if Johnson is the only choice for the near future?

The govt hadn't intended to put the aid bill before parliament. I think that the only reason they allowed it is because they knew they would not be defeated. If there had been any chance of a defeat they would not have put it forward.

lemongrove

Since Johnson is popular within his Party, with Party members and within the country at large, I think he will be around for a while.
Those who don’t like it will be able to vote for a different Party at the next GE several years off.
He may not be popular with all Conservative MP’s ( what PM is?) but they realise there’s nobody else for the job for the near future.

Sadly that’s because they’re all as bad as he is….

So true?