Having devoted a month of my time to Brexit (followed by a serious PC error) I’ve not been involved in the Climate debate for the last few months. But it’s given me time to mull over a peculiarity of the Brexit vote: very much the same people supporting Brexit also support the science on Climate. And in general bonkers climate alarmists tended to be bonkers for the EU. Why?
And what is also extremely obvious is that just like climate, the “political class” were far more supportive of the EU than the people in general.
As I watched (public sector university) expert after expert being paraded before the people in the press and media to tell us all how to vote – it all seemed so familiar. Politically motivated “experts” dressing up their own personal views as “science”/”economics” and looking like a load of numpties and not being believed by any except the gullible press & politicians themselves. I thought climate scepticism was an argument about science – I now realise (at least on the alarmist side) – it’s almost identical to the pro-EU “camp”. It’s the political will of the “political class” being foisted (irrespective of the evidence) on the rest of us. And this trick of dressing it up as “science” or “expert view” is just a cheap political trick the political class have been using for years to fool the public.
But first what do I mean by “political class”? Obviously I count the politicians (like the 128/128 numpty Scottish MSP who voted for “climate change” legislation). But in addition I also mean the overwhelming number of journalists (particularly in public sector broadcasting) who support both the EU & “climate change” (and every other ‘PC’ cause = “press consensus”), but I’d also add in many others in the “public sector” including civil servants and academics into this “political class”.
Which begs the question “who isn’t in the political class?”. First and foremost are the self-employed. Those who work for a living (as typified by the number of vans in roads known to be supportive of Brexit). Next anyone who works for the private sector, with support for the pro-EU “PC class” growing with the size of coy and the higher they rise up the slippery ladder.
In short, those who are in the political class are those who are able to get their views into the old-style media:
- “mainstream politicians”, with the symbiotic relationship with the press of “you scratch our back and we’ll scratch yours”;
- academics who the press love to print as “experts” (meaning the press are clueless as to whether or not they are right – but as public sector “officials” they didn’t see any point fact checking as who would they ask but the same people?)
- government officials
- and those big enough or rich enough to have massive PR departments flooding the press with press releases and buttering them up to get their views printed.
In the past, with climate, I’ve explained the difference between climate sceptics and alarmists as between those with a good science education who like to base their views on the evidence and those with a poor grasp of the scientific method who like to base their views on what someone else tells them is true.
This explained why journalists and politicians tended to be so gullible on climate – they themselves were clueless – so they based their views on the (public sector) experts.
However, with the same kind of divide occurring during Brexit, and (unlike climate) with scientific knowledge not being the key reason why people voted for Brexit, I’m seriously wondering whether climate scepticism isn’t part of a much wider political movement in society.
In other words, climate sceptics are climate sceptics because we are part of the “anti-political class” movement – who ALSO just happen to have an interest in climate.
Note this is very different from traditional “left v. right” party politics. It’s not about which party we favour – it’s above a beyond the traditional stereotype of left versus right. And e.g some very prominent Brexit supporters were also extremely left wing in their views (e.g. Jim Sillars in Scotland). Indeed, I strongly suspect “left” and “right” are no longer meaningful, but instead are (and were) ways for the political class to demark views as “extreme” that were not “in the centre” (meaning their own views).
Why has the “anti-political class suddenly gained importance in the last decade”?
The reason is quite simple. Before the widespread use of the internet, the way we heard what “the public think” was through the press and TV. But this was not actual “public opinion”, instead it was the prejudiced opinion of the “political class”. So, for example, for years the public were told that the public view was that anyone who mentioned immigration was a racist, any politician who dared to talk about leaving the EU was “splitting” from their party, that the world was warming etc. etc. According to the press’ assertion of “public opinion” most of the public did not agree with “public opinion” – and because we didn’t know better they got away with it!
Then along came the internet, and suddenly rather than hearing “public opinion” through the filter of the “political class” we started hearing it direct from the public. As such all those “PC” views that we were being told were part of “public opinion” are now known to be the views, not of the public at large, but of a very small group of the press and media and others in the “Political class” dressed up as “public opinion”.
To my mind, this change in information flow – and by it power to the public – has undoubtedly been thee greatest revolution in my life time.
The Future of Politics
One of the most intriguing events over the last few months has been the effective break-up of the UK labour party. On the one hand we have Corbyn – who undoubtedly had a massive vote from party members, on the other we have the “political class” Blairite party apparatchiks – the (non-socialist) “Oxbridge graduates” who used to control our country who used to foist their non-sense PC ideas on us claiming it was what the public wanted.
I don’t know (or care) enough about internal labour party politics to know whether this is part of the change “against the political class”, but even if it is not, it is the kind of change we would expect. The rebalance of power from those MPs “in the political class” against those ordinary members who are less “in the PC”. If true, it is not surprising that the UK press are as hostile to Corbyn as they are for example to Trump (both of whom seem to be riding the wave of popular support against their respective party machines). Likewise, the rise of UKIP – feels to be a very similar change …. and just to prove it’s not just the right nor sane … the rise of the SNP/EUnionists in Scotland (something which I feel has peaked after Sturgeons EU-Tantrum).
So, we can describe a direction of change (i.e. out of the PC EU, away from climate nutterism, etc.). That is good, but it is also creating a huge conflict in the political class because it is a move against the present political class itself. And like a branch, the political class will bend with public opinion – but when it is the class itself that public opinion is against, it’s difficult to see how it can bend without breaking.
So, how does society and the way we govern ourselves change to reduce that conflict? How does politics now reflect what the majority or people outside the political class want and need – when it’s the political class that is in control that is the problem?
Options
- The first option is simple – politicians know which side their bread is buttered and they are just as capable of anyone else of going onto social media to find out what the public is thinking . On the down side – they used to rely on the journalists to filter and make sense of “public opinion”. So, now that journalists have shown themselves to be as delusional about some issues as the politicians, who do the politicians then turn to? Maybe they just need to learn to “sense” public opinion through the internet – or maybe (like climate) – those who get on in politics are not the ones who can understand public opinion?
- The second option is to try to pre-emptively change the mechanisms of government to somehow include the public more. One way to do this is to have more referendum. But given the huge cost in time and effort to ensure a proper public debate (and I admit we failed in Scotland to achieve this given the poor support for leaving), it’s not something we want too often. Another possibility is to create “citizen juries”. The idea here, is to take groups of people at random – and then to pay them to look at issues in depth (in the way we hope the public – through opinion formers – look at issues before a referendum). This would allow the “political class” to understand what the public would think if they were to have a referendum.
- And the third option is “revolution” … not in the sense that I’m proposing anything specific … but in the sense that sooner or later the public will get fed up with the political class and kick their arses … in an as yet unknown way.
The People’s Revolution!
Addendum
Just an observation from talking to those supporting the EU: the EU they supported wasn’t the EU that actually existed. Instead it was a view of what the EU ought to be like. Again this is very much like the climate. The alarmists are not fearful about the actual climate which shows no significant warming for 18 years, instead they are fearful of the climate as they imagine it to be.
I coined the phrase “facebook EU” – to describe the way the EUnionists seemed to thing the EU was something you should “like” and “be friends with” (to contrast with the real EU where the EUro is heading to collapse, the economy is going to ruin, and freedome, liberty and democracy is dead/dying.)
So, again, it’s a fight between “pragmatists with their feet on the ground looking at what is actually happening” … and … “Utopian, ignore-the-facts-just-listen-to-the-(so-called) ‘experts'” on the other.
Interesting ideas. The close correlation between Brexit and climate scepticism was remarkable. Discussed here.
What you call the anti-political class, I called “those who have a low regard for the institutional, preachy elite”.
Mike,
This may be backward:
“In other words, climate sceptics are climate sceptics because we are part of the “anti-political class” movement – who ALSO just happen to have an interest in climate.”
It may be more like the “can do folk”, and those “over-educated idiots that believe they know what to do”, or more properly “what others should do”. Have you ever seen a conversation between a design engineer, with his draftsman (maker of drawing), and the model shop machinist, trying to construct what should have been described by that drawing, and was not? There is no politics whatsoever, just get it done.
The machinist finally learns what the engineer wanted and how it is supposed to work. The drawing is bleed-ed upon, in red, until those notes become part of the drawing. Then comes heavy lifting. Accurate tolerancing so that the pieces parts work together (but just, every time) as intended. This part cannot be learned from books, it is shorthand communication between folk with various skills. The “can do folk” seem to get testy when instructed by those that still have mommy tie their shoes.,
Thanks – I was just thinking about the time it took to learn to be an engineer – when I started thinking about what politicians did with that time – and obviously they spend it learning to be politicians.
And obviously, in the “old days” of press and TV dominance of communication – that meant learning how to get yourself heard in the press and on TV.
Which meant writing about subjects and in a style that journalists liked. So, never about subjects like engineering & REAL science of which journalists knew little and cared less. And always in an articulate elegant prose that you learn in all the best arts degrees.
But now on the internet, people are far more willing to read any old rubbish like I write – so long as it’s on a subject that interests them. So, all those years doing an Oxbridge degree in history … which used to be the prefect degree to learn how to churn out PRINT-READY press releases which journalists so liked … is completely useless when the people deciding what we read is people like you and me want to read about what interests us.
Mike,
Perhaps I was blessed, Mommy ‘oh sweet baby’! Daddy ‘go weed the strawberry’s!’, are you done yet? Highly skilled folk with such different personal integrity that they would challenge each other! Me poor kid always WTF over? Got through high school. Got through Navy ET school, easy, as having HAM radio license! College BSEE, easy! Supporting self through college, working nights at TV station, not so easy. Later jobs at TI, FLIR, and Honeywell, but with folk with multiple PhDs, that would admit, “I do not know either -will-, lets go find out” BLESSED!
Excellent post. Since the referendum I have been trying to decide whether I am old, stupid, a racist or from the North of England, since the press seem to have decided that you must be in at least one of these categories to have voted to leave the EU. Strangely it never seems to occur to them that perhaps we have fundamental objections to the EU on political or intellectual grounds, such as the anti-democratic nature of the institution.
With the deferral of Hinkley Point there has been some silly comments on the news this morning from politicians and others (Greenpeace) who clearly are oblivious to the implications of the loss of generating capacity in the UK and the sporadic inability of “renewables” to provide an adequate and dependable power supply. There have even been comments linking it to Brexit!
Perhaps the biggest problem with the “political class” is that they believe that they are chosen to rule rather than to represent.
Hinkley Point 3.2 GW rated, untested iffy french thingy. Each Westinghouse AR-1000 One gigawatt 24/7 for two years, 20 re-fuelings, Eight are under..construction now. Hinkley Point Good location for 3 AR-1000s, 12 Westinghouse SMRs, or 60 NuCors bobbing about just off the coast providing that, that must be provided no matter what!
You get to pick which! not the over-educated idiots.
The climate catastrophism theory is political because of the carbon-taxes and windmills. With both EU and Climate, you don’t have to look very far to see we’re being told propaganda rather than facts. Why are the promoters so economical with the truth?
As Michael Gove famously said – “people have had enough of experts …. failed predictions” (I can’t remember the whole phrase). Is there much difference between ClimateGate, Himalayan Glaciers disappearing by 2035, Gulf Stream stopping, and failed economic predictions of “No more Boom and Bust”, not to mention the failed EU promises of Prime Ministers like Tony Blair’s “red-lines” that were broken very quickly or Cameron’s “we’re not going to pay the fine – which they did, in full?
It only needs a mind which looks for what might go wrong to be sceptical of both e.g. people who’s glass is only half-full. People who aren’t gullible.