Weds 14 Oct - 9am
Programme 1 0f 4
Anne McElvoy invites Rory Stwart and Caroline Flint to explore each other's perspective on the notion of "hard-working families". With contributions from conflict resolution specialist Louisa Weinstein.
The format of the programme is to attempt to elicit meaningful debate with, hopefully, useful outcomes, on two people with opposed viewpoints, on subjects of current interest, with Ms Weinstein acting as referee in the manner of chairing a sub-Gestalt-type psychological group encounter, designed to get behind facades and uncover unconscious opinion motivators.
The fact that such confrontations were originally designed to include body language was clearly at a disadvantage inasmuch as the debate was, as far as I could make out, conducted online. Also, while it was interesting to observe the respective underlying rationales unpeeling in the to-and-fro, what was absent in the main was any elucidation of the respective backgrounds of the two protagonists - one which could have clarified how come Rory the Tory was propounding and justifying positions considerably to the left of Ms Flint, who sought justification for the blithe use by politicians of both Left and Right persuasions of the cliché "hard-working families" to gain the support necessary in winning elections, as she forcefully put it.
Observant people will have noted the recent tendency to reclaim territory on behalf on groups which, only a couple of decades ago, would have been deemed to be social categorisations past their sell-by date - all in the name of "identity politics". So, we have "hard-working families", whose opinions must by whatever definition is accorded to "hard-working" merit attention over, presumably, not hard-working families - one could include the unemployed, marginalised ethnic groups, economic migrants, etc. It was to Rory's credit that it was he, rather than Caroline, who understood the artificiality of the labelling, and its deliberate deployment by elements on the Right to demagogic ends. Ms Flint's response was to paint Stewart as an interloper with no understanding of the people she represented and self-identified with by dint of her background. This immediately personalised the conversation in such a way as to undermine all possibility of an amicable agree to disagree conclusion: he argued that his own charity work, involving visits and long stays among dispossessed people in the under-developed world qualified him to speak on their behalf. In her own justification Flint argued that "hard-working" was to be associated with the dignity of work, an idea with a long pedigree in the labour movement. She was not asked to consider the alienated, demeaning character of much of labour under capitalist relations of production. Yet the programmes's format, and the participants' respective backgrounds, precluded all possibility of examining her record of participation in the Labour Party. Had it done so, one would have learned that this was a story of opposition and hostility towards those on the Left who now, once again, form the bedrock of the membership, who do all the running when it comes to electioneering and who historically organised against perpetuated bureaucratic anti-democratic moves in the upper echelons of party and trade unions to ensure the securing of right-wing control over the party and its policy decision-making. To gain power Labour has traditionally resorted to populist rhetoric, eg speaking of "hard-working families", "the national interest" and so forth, in justification of its reluctance to challenge power and privilege apart from in those rare instances when capitalism has been in a position and prepared to grant economically and socially redistributive reforms.
With these provisos advisedly in mind, the discussion may be followed by clicking the link to the programme below:
Programme 1 0f 4
Anne McElvoy invites Rory Stwart and Caroline Flint to explore each other's perspective on the notion of "hard-working families". With contributions from conflict resolution specialist Louisa Weinstein.
The format of the programme is to attempt to elicit meaningful debate with, hopefully, useful outcomes, on two people with opposed viewpoints, on subjects of current interest, with Ms Weinstein acting as referee in the manner of chairing a sub-Gestalt-type psychological group encounter, designed to get behind facades and uncover unconscious opinion motivators.
The fact that such confrontations were originally designed to include body language was clearly at a disadvantage inasmuch as the debate was, as far as I could make out, conducted online. Also, while it was interesting to observe the respective underlying rationales unpeeling in the to-and-fro, what was absent in the main was any elucidation of the respective backgrounds of the two protagonists - one which could have clarified how come Rory the Tory was propounding and justifying positions considerably to the left of Ms Flint, who sought justification for the blithe use by politicians of both Left and Right persuasions of the cliché "hard-working families" to gain the support necessary in winning elections, as she forcefully put it.
Observant people will have noted the recent tendency to reclaim territory on behalf on groups which, only a couple of decades ago, would have been deemed to be social categorisations past their sell-by date - all in the name of "identity politics". So, we have "hard-working families", whose opinions must by whatever definition is accorded to "hard-working" merit attention over, presumably, not hard-working families - one could include the unemployed, marginalised ethnic groups, economic migrants, etc. It was to Rory's credit that it was he, rather than Caroline, who understood the artificiality of the labelling, and its deliberate deployment by elements on the Right to demagogic ends. Ms Flint's response was to paint Stewart as an interloper with no understanding of the people she represented and self-identified with by dint of her background. This immediately personalised the conversation in such a way as to undermine all possibility of an amicable agree to disagree conclusion: he argued that his own charity work, involving visits and long stays among dispossessed people in the under-developed world qualified him to speak on their behalf. In her own justification Flint argued that "hard-working" was to be associated with the dignity of work, an idea with a long pedigree in the labour movement. She was not asked to consider the alienated, demeaning character of much of labour under capitalist relations of production. Yet the programmes's format, and the participants' respective backgrounds, precluded all possibility of examining her record of participation in the Labour Party. Had it done so, one would have learned that this was a story of opposition and hostility towards those on the Left who now, once again, form the bedrock of the membership, who do all the running when it comes to electioneering and who historically organised against perpetuated bureaucratic anti-democratic moves in the upper echelons of party and trade unions to ensure the securing of right-wing control over the party and its policy decision-making. To gain power Labour has traditionally resorted to populist rhetoric, eg speaking of "hard-working families", "the national interest" and so forth, in justification of its reluctance to challenge power and privilege apart from in those rare instances when capitalism has been in a position and prepared to grant economically and socially redistributive reforms.
With these provisos advisedly in mind, the discussion may be followed by clicking the link to the programme below:
Comment