The politics of empathy
Friday, April 23, 2010 Phil Whiteley is an author and journalist. In Meet the New Boss, available online HERE, he discusses cultural influences that make workplaces much worse than they should be. Phil is also a smoker and a (former?) Labour voter. Writing for The Free Society, he says:
Many years ago, when I was working for a social work magazine, I was talking to a social services director in the south of England. He observed that, although a centre-left voter, he always preferred working for moderate Conservative councils than for Labour councils. The reason was that the Tories would just give him a reasonable budget and let him, the expert, run things. A Labour social services chairperson would always be interfering, assuming that he or she could do things better than him.
Odd how that conversation should stick in the mind for 20 years. It is now clear, after 13 years in government, that telling people what to do, even if they have much less expertise and information, is a fatal tendency among Labour politicians. They tell us what to eat, how much to drink, not to smoke, how much to exercise, despite having no real expertise on nutrition, health or sport; with the puritan assumption that physical health is the only form of health, and no knowledge or understanding of us as individuals.
Phil makes another point, which applies (I suggest) not just to Labour but to politicians of all parties, including the main party leaders.
The vitriol aimed at smokers is particularly hard-line. There’s no allowance; no empathy; not a scintilla of understanding that, perhaps, the human body is not just a machine, and that palliatives like a ciggie and a gin and tonic can help you through the day.
Empathy. Interesting word. Former health secretary John Reid definitely had it. A former smoker and heavy drinker, he empathised with many of his working class constituents for whom a cigarette is one of the few pleasures available to them (Reid's words, not mine).
You might forgive Gordon Brown and other politicians who don't smoke for having little or no empathy with smokers (although a little tolerance wouldn't go amiss). But what about David Cameron (an ex-smoker) and Nick Clegg (who still smokes)?
OK, perhaps they empathise with those who wish to cut down or quit. But surely they can also empathise with those who enjoy smoking and don't want to give up? They must have enjoyed smoking once so why can't they stand up and express some understanding and tolerance for those who choose to light up - and legislate/regulate accordingly?
Instead, resounding silence. That, to me, says all you need to know about Cameron and Clegg.
Full article HERE.
Reader Comments (17)
Phil is actually a non-smoker ...
Simon, your article could not be more timely. Next Thursday near Westminster is a presentation by Dr. Patrick Basham.
Chaired by Mark Littlewood Director General for the Institue Of Econmic Affairs is:
"The War on Working Class Culture – How Political Elites Denormalise a Way of Life."
In more detail:
"Our provocative report takes both Government and Opposition parties to task for their growing attacks on working class habits and lifestyles. We demonstrate both the junk science behind the attacks and reveal the political elite’s real agenda – to denormalise ordinary tastes and preferences so normal behaviour becomes seen as aberrant behaviour. In challenging this elitist agenda, we defend the working man's (and woman's) fondness for a bet, a Big Mac, a drink, a smoke, and a tan."
To book email pbasham@democracyinstitute.org
5.45pm –7.30pm
Thursday 29 April 2010
2 Lord North St
(Door on Great Peter St)
Westminster SW1P 3LB
Dr Basham & Dr Luik’s talk begins at 6.00pm
followed by drinks reception until 7.30pm
RSVP
As well as myself Chris Snowdon author of Velvet Glove, Iron Fist is going, I will confirm but Dick Puddlecote normally goes.
Don't feel awkward about going, and you can always button hole me and the IEA Economists are a really friendly unpretentious bunch.
You can email me on daveatherton20@hotmail.com
Cleg smokes? New one on me. Great article by Phil though, and that's from me, another ex Labour voter.
I have to echo The Big Yin's surprise at the news that Clegg is a smoker.
Well, well !
Just one point, though: I DO wish that the anti-smoking crusade was NOT seen simply as an attack on Working-Class Culture (whatever THAT is).
I fear that this sort of language tends to play to/reinforce the anti-smoking fashion among the Middle Classes (whoever THEY are these days).
Smoking is class-less, surely ?
Tobacco, like alcohol and sex, and all the other naughty things that bring a little sweetness into our otherwise dreary lives, is there to be enjoyed by EVERYBODY.
Or have I missed something ?
Re Clegg being a smoker, I wrote about it HERE on Monday. An interview in the Guardian revealed that Clegg supports the smoking ban despite the fact that he still smokes the occasional cigarette.
"Clegg supports the smoking ban even though he smokes a cigarette"
These guys are all the bloody same, they'd change their sex if it meant getting elected.
Martin, the anti spin doctors are still dining out on that soundbite about smokers being working class.
They knew it would hit a chord with the wanabees and the mental image it projected of sink estates and slags with fags hanging out of their mouths.
Unlike their own mental image of themselves, that of city types hopping into their Beamers with their sparkling water bottles and air freshner in their proper holder.
I was discussing the ban with a Tory canvasser, who said he was a local licensee. I told him that his candidate would not get my vote and why. The ban is clearly a nettle too far for the Conservatives. I was struck by a term the canvasser used which stays with me. I would like to check back that I actually heard him aright - but as I recall he referred to 'the snout trail'. I did not understand at first and then I grasped that this was a reference to the procession of customers from bar to doorway and outside to smoke. If I've got it right that is a description worthy of Goebbels and his world, with its implications of pigs, slugs and snails, and 'snout' being prison slang for tobacco. Not just denormalising but dehumanising.
Cameron used to smoke and may well still do behind closed doors for all we know so it is not just Clegg who should empathy. However, Cameron has refused to even discuss amending the ban.
Furthermore, as a former drug taker himself [he nearly got expelled from Eton for smoking cannabis and has never denied taking cocaine] he did show empathy for drug takers when the UK Parliament's Home Affairs Committee of which he was a member said the following;
'24. We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma.'
Legalise drugs but make further restrictions on smoking. Hypocrite.
Ann -
I fear you may be right: Fashion and Snobbery have always been good friends.
Norman -
(Would that be Norman The Good, perchance ?)
Yes, it's distressing how much of this nonsense is spouted by what I used to think of as 'my' Party: not so long ago some banning Tory councillor referred to 'walls of smoke' - erected by workers outside council premises during their fag break.
Fog of smoke indoors - maybe.
But a WALL ?
I wish someone would photograph this strange phenomenon: I'd love to see it.
Makes you wonder what other images from the era of trench warfare these cretins will adopt next.
'Creeping barrage of smoke', perhaps............
I also have it on very good authority that a lady Labour MP smokes in her office in the House Of Commons and they voted for the ban too.
That really is a rank hypocrite.
I agree Dave. A hypocrite can be of any persuasion.
Why can't we be more like the French. When something they don't like comes along they simply ignore it or kick up a right royal rumpus. We Brits on the other hand skulk off into a corner and moan about it amongst ourselves. Is anyone actually doing anything about this ridiculous ban that's meaningful or are we all just going sit around and moan about it until we all die of old age?
Martin & ann - they'll be using the standard SEGs AB/C1 (middle class) and C2/DE (working class) and I believe the stats show that smoking is more prevalent among C2/DEs than AB/C1s.
Just before the ban came in R4's The Moral Maze discussed it. One of the 'witnesses' (as the panel calls the experts which they grill) was the archetypal Labour drone who found herself having to admit that the ban was part of a denormalisation programme aimed at those whose income was less than £15,000, ie mainly the DEs. Labour had, in effect, taken it upon itself to decide that these people couldn't afford to smoke (despite making smoking ever more unaffordable!!). Among the middle-classes, smokers were a minority and, although not the target, would have to accept that they were caught in the same net.
Joyce -
'The Moral Maze' - mysteriously unavailable on iPlayer (unlike the bloody Jenni Murray Hour) - lost much of its bite with the departure of David Starkey and Janet Daley, but I wish I'd heard THAT one.
As to the metrics of 'class', the buggers would have a job slotting me into one of their neat little categories.
This probably won't be an 'issue' for our great grandchildren: in the coming Utopia, all citizens will be assigned a social classification at birth (and woe betide any who seeks to escape).
Up the Epsilons !
:) Martin - that broadcast is the ONLY one in which I've heard the Beeb admit (by Michael Buerk in his introduction) that the case for SHS/ETS/passive smoking has absolutely no merit. He, therefore, cut to the chase ie denormalisation, which, undoubtedly, threw the Labour drone into a flat spin!
I stopped listening to Jenni Murray when Woman's Hour went all Afrika and in-depth reports on the adverse consequences on climate of Hebridean string-weavers.
@ Gary - Reading.
The question of ‘what can be done’ has arisen before on a number of occasions. It was, for example, suggested that there should be a march (or marches) of smokers similar to the poll tax marches. Such an idea was reasonable, but unrealistic for various reasons; for example, because there was no immediate cost involved and because it is very hard to march in favour of an activity (smoking) which even many smokers accept to be ‘unhealthy’.
But there is a way, although it is a slow and gradual thing. The way requires that every smoker, who has no desire to quit, signs up on a website. It would have to be something like a petition, but not actually a petition, because the whole idea would be to avoid any possibility of any politician or the EU or anyone saying, “No!” In the first instance, the idea would be simply to amass lots and lots of names. The website would simply state something like, “I wish to declare that I am a smoker. I enjoy smoking. I do not wish anyone to deny me this pleasure”. Of course, anyone wishing to actually set up such a site would have to be aware that there is a multitude of well-funded organizations which will do their best to spoil your plan. These are difficulties which would need to be overcome.
If a sufficiently large number of names could be amassed, then there would be a GROUP. We would no longer be in a ‘divide et impera’ situation. It would be possible to bring pressure to bear.
FOREST is the ideal organization to promote this idea, because it is a well-known name. It would not be easy for the likes of ASH etc to counter the argument, in the sense that they could promote a counter website which says, “I am not a smoker and I wish to deny smokers their pleasure”. Such an idea would be nonsense and rather silly.
The accumulation of names would necessarily be a slow process at first, but would certainly be something that smokers could promulgate with relative ease.
Junican -
The seed of a Good Idea !
But any such declarartion MUST make it clear that we ACTIVELY support the principle of choice for Smoker AND Non-Smoker alike.
We must - at all costs - avoid the taint of 'selfishness', of which WE are frequently accused.
But do you not think it would be wise to allow tolerant non-smokers to sign, also ?
THEIR numbers are considerable.