Mrsduffygate
John Lanchester · Brown and the 'bigoted woman'
In Geoffrey Madan’s Notebooks, there’s a story about Gladstone. Someone tells him an anecdote about two brothers having an argument about an inheritance in Derbyshire on Christmas Eve; the younger one, with the help of the butler, attacked the elder and caused GBH. He was put on trial, and fled the country on his solicitor’s advice. Told those bare facts, Gladstone immediately said that seven points were ‘especially worthy of attention’, and went through them at length.
To adopt a conciser form of the Gladstonian manner, I’d like to draw attention to the following seven points about our prime minister’s encounter with Mrs Duffy of Rochdale:
1. The fact that the ‘spontaneous’ encounter with a member of the electorate was supposed to be a stage-managed event with a hand-picked lifelong Labour supporter.
2. The whingeing.
3. The blaming of sidekicks.
4. The fact that she was by no serious standard a bigot, and that there was no racial edge to her remarks, which, whether you agree with them or not, voice a concern shared by millions of older white working-class voters.
5. The very, very rare glimpse into the way politicians talk in private. This in turn reflects the following:
6. The fact that professional politicians tend not to forget when they are wearing a microphone, especially if it belongs to a news organisation owned by Rupert Murdoch (Sky).
7. And last, the fact that almost any one of us can imagine doing something similar. I don’t mean about the specific case, I just mean saying the exact opposite of what we came out with when we were doing ‘nice’.
I doubt this will actively put anyone off Labour and onto another party, but it will depress activists no end and may do something to stop people from turning out to vote. It doesn’t take much to turn a reluctant loyalist into a non-voter, and that ‘bigoted’ thing might just do it. Still, here’s a good suggestion about how Brown might turn things round, from the satirical news site Newsbiscuit.
Comments
"No racial edge"? Well, first she said there were too many people claiming benefits they weren't entitled to; then he said something about getting people off benefit; then she said "you can't say anything about the immigrants". What that says to me - and clearly what it said to Brown - was that too many people was code for "too many of the wrong sort of people, not that I expect you to care about that, you don't have to live round here".
She expressed the views of a bigot (rather incoherently), and he called her a bigot behind her back. The worst you can really say of Brown is that he's two-faced and doesn't risk expressing his real views when it might antagonise a potential supporter. You'd almost think he was one of those 'politicians'.
Concern about the disruption which can be caused by immigration – particularly by immigration exploited by business for gain – can’t be wished away or automatically labelled as racist ... But that’s a real concern. What Mrs Duffy articulated – “got to spend less, got to spend more, got to spend less, blame the immigrants” – was more of a very real concern. A folk devil, in other words – a scapegoat for what’s going wrong, with an added element of fear of how much wronger things could go if someone doesn’t do something about it.
Many working class British people express these sentiments about immigration in exactly these terms - that's because they are the only terms offered them by our media. If you press on (unlike Broon who simply wanted to shut her up)then what you find is not usually racism but concern about jobs being taken by people who will take crap work at low rates in non-unionised places, or do overtime for time rather than time-and-a-half. So its fundamentally economic or social discontent expressed as apparent xenophobia.
I also think it's a bit far-fetched to say that "bigot" just meant "punter with inconvenient views" - I think if that had been all he would have called her a stupid woman, not a bigot. (Would that have been better or worse?)
It must be a very long time since Brown had a fairly normal conversation with a fairly normal, average voter. That he could have said that was a disaster suggests he is wildly out of touch, to me, and that he may lack a few personal social skills. I suppose an indication of when he first imagined that this meeting was a disaster was when he attempted some uncomfortable small talk with her about her grandchildren and all the while she is now clearly trying to get away from him - and yet he presses on with his questioning, not picking up that she has said what she needed to say and now wants to get away. It starts to look at this stage like she's stuck with someone very boring and/or awful at a party and she's trying to edge away, politely. That is the only really obvious 'disaster' at that stage - that he doesn't seem to know how to interact with her on an everyday level.
John Harris in The Guardian writes an insightful piece about all this and suggests that Brown's gaffe and interpretation of the meeting - "bigot", "ridiculous" - is symptomatic of a huge disconnect between many Labour politicians and ordinary, working class and traditionally Labour voters - this 'bigotted' woman could have been my late nan - bewildered at the world she found herself in compared with what she used to know and understand, and surprised to find herself listened to by a politician whom she assumes should care about what she felt.
I felt so sorry for the poor woman when she was told by a reporter that she had been called a bigot by the man with whom she had just had a reasonable conversation. Or so she thought. She looked amazed and really, really hurt.
More on the East European angle from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/29/gillian-duffy-eastern-european
But while we're at it, Allan's argument that 'apparent xenophobia' is caused by (real) socio-economic and political exclusion, is actually the reverse of what the IPPR report posits, namely real xenophobia being fuelled by imagined exclusion.
Broon was just like that - education produced one phrase; crime another. If Ms Duffy thought she'd been talking to a man with whom she'd just had a reasonable conversation then she can't have been concentrating.
I'd say she was concentrating though well enough by the time she had had her say. That's when he turned into something like a clueless vicar character trying to be chummy over a lukewarm cup of tea at a dismal village hall with an old dear whom he knows he should know something about - but she's just a silly old bigotted biddy and he really can barely manage it. And so asks about the grandchildren and gets it woefully wrong - no they're not going to university yet, they're only 12 and 10, she tells him. "Ah, a good family", he chips in, "Yes", she says as she shuffles further away. By that stage, I agree, she may not have thought the conversation was particularly reasonable.