Personally, following the Mandelson fiasco, I don't find Starmer - bashing that difficult to understand, although my reasons for doing so are probably different to those of the typical Reformer.
I find I can get a less oppositional reaction from them if I focus on Farage's links to Trump and his tendency to toady to big donors. We have common ground in the need to deal with "the elites", we just identify those elites differently - but that can be worked with.
True, Jacky. In his research on the most useful themes for deterring Reform voters, Steve Akehurst highlighted 'Trump' and 'corporate interests' as the top two. The Compass Oxon group added a some others - the NHS, employment & renters rights and women's rights. These were selected because, though not tested in polling, in our view, were less likely to incur hostility.
Except people ARE imprisoned for free speech - 500+ arrested over the weekend, for example, for supporting Palestine Action. That's another possible area of common ground that can be worked with.
They are imprisoned for supporting a proscribed organisation, not for free speech. It is always an offence to advocate for proscribed organisations, pretty much everywhere. There is a worthwhile argument about whether Palestine Action SHOULD have been banned (I think not) but it is a different argument.
I'm not sure that iit's nitpicking. One of the research findings on extremist views is that they are more effectively combated by questioning than by counter-argument, which tends to entrench people more firmly in their views. Asking them what their views are based on tends to make them realise that they don't know. They probably won't admit it at the time, but it has a gradual moderating effect. Questioning people's views does mean being precise, though - attack on too broad a front at once and you're likely to get a defensive response.
Yes agreed. This was also one of the tactics emphasised by the Compass group - throwing out facts in a vacuum risks causing defensiveness. The groundwork has to be done beforehand via various measures including being non-partisan, using questions, obtaining commitment to basic values and letting recipients work out for themselves whether their interests will be protected by party x etc.
So, would you say this brief interaction with Jacky is a good example of this approach? It feels like you both raise important points about the free speech debate, which speaks (sic) to the core of Jaki's argument about how certain issues are being exploited but also contain reasonable cores.
I am in the online trenches on this one and am finding it almost impossible to have a rational conversation with any REFUK-er. Some of them just don’t care. They are angry and frightened, have a visceral hatred of Starmer and believe the local elections are the equivalent of a general election. We lost people the moment Reeves nuked WFA and then left activists to figure out how to spin it - an impossible task. And then piled on the anguish with a combination of stupid (as in economically illiterate) and unpopular moves. All a perfect gift for a well honed marketing machine aka Nigel Farage’s US fuelled Reform.
Of one thing you are bang on. Labour has no idea how to handle criticism except with the blunt instruments of censoriousness, arrogance and silence, covering over a deep insecurity. It is tragic.
Hi Den and bravo for sticking it out in the trenches. Ideally, as campaigners, we'd focus only on persuadable (not die-hard) Reform supporters (+ the undecided). The problem is that we can't distinguish them online or on doorsteps and getting 6 diehards in a row is demoralising. Also, the disenchantment you describe is almost deafening atm with Labour amplifying it by the day - the continuing Mandygate saga being a classic example.
I wrote the article you mention to describe the rationale behind the work Compass Oxfordshire has been doing on re-thinking some approaches towards anti-Reform campaigning. We've created a video presentation which is close to being finalised and I'll share it on my Substack. It outlines some priority themes, principles and tactics which together will, we hope, set the groundwork for more constructive convos with Reform supporters. So, do look out for it. Not a magic bullet but some food for thought.
Thanks for that Claire - look forward to hearing more. The base problem I perceive is that we are too technocratic. I am as guilty as anyone, having had careers as both a partner in a firm of Chartered Accountants and as a technology analyst. Sometimes, we have a forensically astute understanding of issues but with all the empathy of a cold fish. Reform plays the emotional game and hopes the policies catch up. which they don't but heh, minor details like that don't seem to bother voters these days.
This is brilliant and spot-on. I live in a Reform voting area and shy away from difficult conversations because when I do get into them I get angry at what I see as wilful indifference to the 'good stuff' this government has been doing. I know this is often counterproductive and this has really opened my eyes as to the necessity for such conversations and the best way to approach them. Thank you.
We in Wales are having NATIONAL not LOCAL elections to form a Government. 16 regions (some newly formed) will elect 6 representatives in each region.
Scope and coverage varies…local press, national press, social media, canvassing, hustings, televised debating…
The characters regularly covered by a certain party, vocalising in the press, on national tv will play no part in the ACTUAL Senedd, however, they seem to feel that it is they that dictate the future direction that Wales adopts. A bit like visiting political figures offering foreign influence 🤬
My perception, is that the success of the far right has been built on social ‘toxic’ media, not policy, perpetuated by MSM and amplified by the RW press.
A toothless OFCOM, a lack of Leveson 2 and a willingness of the present UK govt to align with this, leaves politicians having to be ‘strongmen/women/non-binary’ in the areas that are favourable to the media industry.
If we wish a ‘Great Britain’ of tolerance, understanding, accountability, empathy, cohesion, diversity, safety, pity, those that profligate rage, hate, blame, ‘flag shagging’, need to be addressed and the message has to be allowed to get out on all MSM and Press publications front pages. (Not the manufactured click bait crap)🤬
When you kick a can down the road it creates a noise, when there are many cans being kicked it becomes a racket, QED ReForm, a racketeering gang of charlatans that profit at the expense of ‘othering’, there’s no place in the Senedd for these ‘grifters’🤬
The problem is that Wales doesn't really have a 'national press' any more. The Western Mail is now in the hands of English owners with barely any Welsh reporters left. Its website is a joke, a perfect example of the clickbaiters you mention. I didn't realise Somerset or Kent were in Wales but that's the way the Western Mail's website portrays things.
We have the Nation as a slight counterbalance, but it has limited resources. This is reflected in the scale and quality of its output. Naturally, this makes it an easy target for Reform.
Overall, this simply underscores the dangers the Welsh electorate faces. With such limited news channels available, making informed decisions is incredibly difficult.
I agree, It frustrates me, the member from Clacton electioneering here to promote his interests is akin to all the shills that recently visited Hungary to back their fancied runner, let us hope the same result occurs.
The key, it would seem, to challenging this influence is people actually exercising their vote, now more than ever.
There is a lot to like about this analysis. However (isn’t there always?) I think that there is a missing dimension in all of this: we are playing a 21stC game with 20thC tools and methods. ReformUK are light years ahead of us. They are selling a brand aka NFarage. We are selling….SKS?
Thanks Den. Just to clarify, the article certainly was not, by implication, 'selling SKS'. One of the considerable difficulties for progressive campaigners is that, whilst we can encourage voters to see the negatives of Reform, SKS's labour is making a mockery of our attempts to offer a positive alternative vision. We'd be met with justified derision and so, in this sense, we're 'empty-handed' on the street.
We cannot sell a progressive vision currently represented by a party that appears, in so many ways, to be a re-run of the Johnsonian Tories that we helped remove in 2024 (the cronyism and immorality of the Mandy & Doyle appointments, the careless social insensitivity of Freebiegate, the incompetence of 13 U turns, the tawdry factionalism of the party's inner boys club circle and it's ruthless purges of the left, the knee-jerk firing (Gray, Robbins, et al) and the moral cowardice (re Gaza and Trump appeasement). All of this has rammed home even deeper cynicism in an already chronically cynical public.
But not being able to point to the viability of the current alternative to Reform has it's advantages - it helps campaigners to present as non-partisan (an essential tactic in our polarised environment). Also, I'd argue that the very act of showing 'NFarage's' dangers is also a positive exercise because it's a starting point for discussion about empowerment - for working out what we really want and how to demand it.
I sense we are broadly in agreement. We (as in local-to-me Labour) knew we were in for a bad time 2 years ago. The moment we were left ‘empty handed’ (good choice of expression!!) with WFA it was game over. But we did almost nothing to counterbalance by focusing on local issues and making a noise about it. I could go on but I suspect we are in violent agreement about much of this omnishambles.
Spot on. I live on a Reform leaning estate and am doing my best to engage. This resonates fully “ To get across that Reform policy actually endangers Reformers themselves, campaigners have first to counter the Reformer’s preconceptions. This involves, amongst other things, being genuinely receptive to their cynicism and sense of disempowerment, and showing willingness to grasp the Reformer’s viewpoint, including on difficult matters like race and Starmer loathing”
I feel like shouting "Amen". There's a lot to unpack in this. Simply put, this is spot on. It's a pity we're stuck in a bit of an echo chamber right now, but this highlights a fundamental fact - we need to revisit our attitudes towards Reform voters as much as anything else.
Farage is the only one who has really recognised the level of anger felt by many. Yes, he is exploiting that. That's his MO. I hope you don't mind though, Claire, your article has prompted a more detailed response for consideration.
Cc'd to your Substack - Tim, thank you so much for your response to my article. Apologies for the slow reply but I needed a moment to give it the special attention it deserves. Some thoughts - in no particular order.
You have amplified very persuasively some of the points I’d condensed into a piece attempting to cover many aspects of the issue.
Tribal hatred and simplification of the ‘other’ is a fairly endemic human social grouping activity (sadly). Consequently, the left, we agree, has also had a substantial hand in driving the preconceptions and polarisation which are so damaging to relations between the ‘two sides’.
Re your apt label ‘dismissal theory’ for arguments I raise about immigration, since, as we also agree, immigration is the explanatory rationale for Reform, progressive campaigners can’t simply sidestep it as ‘too toxic’’. It will come up on doorsteps anyway.
Nor can they ‘shout it down’ as misguided. Whilst there’s sometimes a case for ‘moving the conversation elsewhere’, campaigners need strategies for handling the topic that show sensitivity to opposing viewpoints, and are able to build respect and trust.
This is something progressives seem to find especially difficult re the cultural aspect of immigration anxieties – ‘I can put you right about resource expropriation by migrants. I can also engage with your anxieties about your community losing it’s character because of, say, retail warehouses, motorway systems or empty shops. But I can’t engage with your fears about your community becoming unrecognisable because of ethnic changes as that’s outright racism’. But we have to engage (constructively and sympathetically) - campaigning in ways that dismiss these fears simply increases the divide between us and Reformers.
Progressives also have to recognise the powerful persuasiveness of the ‘Britain First’ mindset in times of hardship such as our current cost of living crisis - having to share or give away resources you need to survive feels illogical and harmful. Hence, being told ‘you are morally bad or stupid if you refuse’ is a recipe for further polarised hostility. Similarly, whilst there are sound economic arguments for providing foreign aid, etc, demands for ‘reparation for the UK’s historic abuses’, seriously aggravates feelings of resentment and anger and, as you say, ‘feeds into’ already polarised positions.
I also fully agree with your points about ‘confidence’. Scepticism about expertise is now ubiquitous and applies not just to scientific research but also political competence – Mandygate is decisively ramming this point home in voter’s minds right now.
It perhaps doesn’t matter that the causes of this cultural doubt are a complex mix of justified reaction to political mistakes, radical right propaganda feeding conspiratorial thinking, and social media algorithmic tailoring and fragmentation of people’s thinking. The key point (for campaigners) is that there are rationales for the loss of confidence – premises from which voters’ doubts logically follow. Recognising and respecting how people’s beliefs make them feel are necessary preliminaries to successful communication. Leaping in with scornful attacks on the premise is counterproductive.
Also, doubt spreads to whole belief systems – from ‘some to all politicians are corrupt’, from ‘Covid vaccine testing was done in a hurry’ to ‘they might not be safe’, and from ‘some climate activists say I must never fly’ to ‘all climate activists are crazy’, etc. The more extreme end of left thinking contaminates how the left is perceived overall. There is a constant drive towards cognitive consonance in tribal thinking and very little nuance. Whilst this generalisation tendency isn’t rational, since progressives are just as guilty, we shouldn’t mock the opposition for doing the same.
Finally, whilst I agree that humility and re-thinking are vital steps progressives need to consider, I’d caution against descending into relativism. Acknowledging and respecting the causes of people’s beliefs doesn’t make them equally true. It’s about finding robust, Socratic ways of encouraging people to review their own attitudes (their beliefs and fears) - ways which step outside the damaging constraints of our preconceptions (on both sides).
As I mentioned at the end of the article, the Compass steering group of which I’m a member has been exploring ways to put these ideas into action as campaigners. We’ve formulated a set of prioritised themes, principles and tactics for interaction with Reformers that try to overcome some of the hefty campaigning barriers posed by polarisation and preconceptions. It’s very much work in progress and we don’t pretend it’s a magic bullet. But if you’re interested, please follow me on Substack where I’ll be sharing our video presentation which is just being finalised.
Once again, thank you for your very insightful response to my article.
Thank you for your response. My apologies for taking so long to respond, but life has a habit of getting in the way. I'd like to offer the following in response:
Thank you for your informative and thought-provoking article. I've long been convinced that arguing with Deform voters (or MAGAs in the US) with facts is fruitless. Their support for the far right is largely emotional and our arguments need to appeal in an emotional level. My thinking is that Deform's plans to replace the NHS with a US style insurance system is likely to gain the most traction. After all, the NHS is almost universally admired and something we are justifiably proud of.
Personally, following the Mandelson fiasco, I don't find Starmer - bashing that difficult to understand, although my reasons for doing so are probably different to those of the typical Reformer.
I find I can get a less oppositional reaction from them if I focus on Farage's links to Trump and his tendency to toady to big donors. We have common ground in the need to deal with "the elites", we just identify those elites differently - but that can be worked with.
True, Jacky. In his research on the most useful themes for deterring Reform voters, Steve Akehurst highlighted 'Trump' and 'corporate interests' as the top two. The Compass Oxon group added a some others - the NHS, employment & renters rights and women's rights. These were selected because, though not tested in polling, in our view, were less likely to incur hostility.
And then we get today’s news about that whole Mandelson business.
That’s a huge fail by Blue Labour.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/16/revealed-mandelson-failed-vetting-but-foreign-office-overruled-decision
It isn't just propaganda from 'uk' media
USA media constantly hits the Internet with fear tactics.
Knife crime is everywhere
Khan has introduced sharia law in Londonistan
They constantly attack SKS.
We are over taxed.
NHS is useless, long waiting times. 200% exaggeration
Imprisoned over 'free speech'
Except people ARE imprisoned for free speech - 500+ arrested over the weekend, for example, for supporting Palestine Action. That's another possible area of common ground that can be worked with.
They are imprisoned for supporting a proscribed organisation, not for free speech. It is always an offence to advocate for proscribed organisations, pretty much everywhere. There is a worthwhile argument about whether Palestine Action SHOULD have been banned (I think not) but it is a different argument.
That is, of course, completely true.
And it's equally true that jailing people for encouraging criminal behaviour on line is also not a "free speech" issue.
But nitpicking isn't going to get you very far in discussions with Reformers.
I'm not sure that iit's nitpicking. One of the research findings on extremist views is that they are more effectively combated by questioning than by counter-argument, which tends to entrench people more firmly in their views. Asking them what their views are based on tends to make them realise that they don't know. They probably won't admit it at the time, but it has a gradual moderating effect. Questioning people's views does mean being precise, though - attack on too broad a front at once and you're likely to get a defensive response.
Yes agreed. This was also one of the tactics emphasised by the Compass group - throwing out facts in a vacuum risks causing defensiveness. The groundwork has to be done beforehand via various measures including being non-partisan, using questions, obtaining commitment to basic values and letting recipients work out for themselves whether their interests will be protected by party x etc.
So, would you say this brief interaction with Jacky is a good example of this approach? It feels like you both raise important points about the free speech debate, which speaks (sic) to the core of Jaki's argument about how certain issues are being exploited but also contain reasonable cores.
I am in the online trenches on this one and am finding it almost impossible to have a rational conversation with any REFUK-er. Some of them just don’t care. They are angry and frightened, have a visceral hatred of Starmer and believe the local elections are the equivalent of a general election. We lost people the moment Reeves nuked WFA and then left activists to figure out how to spin it - an impossible task. And then piled on the anguish with a combination of stupid (as in economically illiterate) and unpopular moves. All a perfect gift for a well honed marketing machine aka Nigel Farage’s US fuelled Reform.
Of one thing you are bang on. Labour has no idea how to handle criticism except with the blunt instruments of censoriousness, arrogance and silence, covering over a deep insecurity. It is tragic.
Hi Den and bravo for sticking it out in the trenches. Ideally, as campaigners, we'd focus only on persuadable (not die-hard) Reform supporters (+ the undecided). The problem is that we can't distinguish them online or on doorsteps and getting 6 diehards in a row is demoralising. Also, the disenchantment you describe is almost deafening atm with Labour amplifying it by the day - the continuing Mandygate saga being a classic example.
I wrote the article you mention to describe the rationale behind the work Compass Oxfordshire has been doing on re-thinking some approaches towards anti-Reform campaigning. We've created a video presentation which is close to being finalised and I'll share it on my Substack. It outlines some priority themes, principles and tactics which together will, we hope, set the groundwork for more constructive convos with Reform supporters. So, do look out for it. Not a magic bullet but some food for thought.
Thanks for that Claire - look forward to hearing more. The base problem I perceive is that we are too technocratic. I am as guilty as anyone, having had careers as both a partner in a firm of Chartered Accountants and as a technology analyst. Sometimes, we have a forensically astute understanding of issues but with all the empathy of a cold fish. Reform plays the emotional game and hopes the policies catch up. which they don't but heh, minor details like that don't seem to bother voters these days.
This is brilliant and spot-on. I live in a Reform voting area and shy away from difficult conversations because when I do get into them I get angry at what I see as wilful indifference to the 'good stuff' this government has been doing. I know this is often counterproductive and this has really opened my eyes as to the necessity for such conversations and the best way to approach them. Thank you.
We in Wales are having NATIONAL not LOCAL elections to form a Government. 16 regions (some newly formed) will elect 6 representatives in each region.
Scope and coverage varies…local press, national press, social media, canvassing, hustings, televised debating…
The characters regularly covered by a certain party, vocalising in the press, on national tv will play no part in the ACTUAL Senedd, however, they seem to feel that it is they that dictate the future direction that Wales adopts. A bit like visiting political figures offering foreign influence 🤬
My perception, is that the success of the far right has been built on social ‘toxic’ media, not policy, perpetuated by MSM and amplified by the RW press.
A toothless OFCOM, a lack of Leveson 2 and a willingness of the present UK govt to align with this, leaves politicians having to be ‘strongmen/women/non-binary’ in the areas that are favourable to the media industry.
If we wish a ‘Great Britain’ of tolerance, understanding, accountability, empathy, cohesion, diversity, safety, pity, those that profligate rage, hate, blame, ‘flag shagging’, need to be addressed and the message has to be allowed to get out on all MSM and Press publications front pages. (Not the manufactured click bait crap)🤬
When you kick a can down the road it creates a noise, when there are many cans being kicked it becomes a racket, QED ReForm, a racketeering gang of charlatans that profit at the expense of ‘othering’, there’s no place in the Senedd for these ‘grifters’🤬
The problem is that Wales doesn't really have a 'national press' any more. The Western Mail is now in the hands of English owners with barely any Welsh reporters left. Its website is a joke, a perfect example of the clickbaiters you mention. I didn't realise Somerset or Kent were in Wales but that's the way the Western Mail's website portrays things.
We have the Nation as a slight counterbalance, but it has limited resources. This is reflected in the scale and quality of its output. Naturally, this makes it an easy target for Reform.
Overall, this simply underscores the dangers the Welsh electorate faces. With such limited news channels available, making informed decisions is incredibly difficult.
I agree, It frustrates me, the member from Clacton electioneering here to promote his interests is akin to all the shills that recently visited Hungary to back their fancied runner, let us hope the same result occurs.
The key, it would seem, to challenging this influence is people actually exercising their vote, now more than ever.
There is a lot to like about this analysis. However (isn’t there always?) I think that there is a missing dimension in all of this: we are playing a 21stC game with 20thC tools and methods. ReformUK are light years ahead of us. They are selling a brand aka NFarage. We are selling….SKS?
Thanks Den. Just to clarify, the article certainly was not, by implication, 'selling SKS'. One of the considerable difficulties for progressive campaigners is that, whilst we can encourage voters to see the negatives of Reform, SKS's labour is making a mockery of our attempts to offer a positive alternative vision. We'd be met with justified derision and so, in this sense, we're 'empty-handed' on the street.
We cannot sell a progressive vision currently represented by a party that appears, in so many ways, to be a re-run of the Johnsonian Tories that we helped remove in 2024 (the cronyism and immorality of the Mandy & Doyle appointments, the careless social insensitivity of Freebiegate, the incompetence of 13 U turns, the tawdry factionalism of the party's inner boys club circle and it's ruthless purges of the left, the knee-jerk firing (Gray, Robbins, et al) and the moral cowardice (re Gaza and Trump appeasement). All of this has rammed home even deeper cynicism in an already chronically cynical public.
But not being able to point to the viability of the current alternative to Reform has it's advantages - it helps campaigners to present as non-partisan (an essential tactic in our polarised environment). Also, I'd argue that the very act of showing 'NFarage's' dangers is also a positive exercise because it's a starting point for discussion about empowerment - for working out what we really want and how to demand it.
I sense we are broadly in agreement. We (as in local-to-me Labour) knew we were in for a bad time 2 years ago. The moment we were left ‘empty handed’ (good choice of expression!!) with WFA it was game over. But we did almost nothing to counterbalance by focusing on local issues and making a noise about it. I could go on but I suspect we are in violent agreement about much of this omnishambles.
Spot on. I live on a Reform leaning estate and am doing my best to engage. This resonates fully “ To get across that Reform policy actually endangers Reformers themselves, campaigners have first to counter the Reformer’s preconceptions. This involves, amongst other things, being genuinely receptive to their cynicism and sense of disempowerment, and showing willingness to grasp the Reformer’s viewpoint, including on difficult matters like race and Starmer loathing”
I’ll do my best!
I feel like shouting "Amen". There's a lot to unpack in this. Simply put, this is spot on. It's a pity we're stuck in a bit of an echo chamber right now, but this highlights a fundamental fact - we need to revisit our attitudes towards Reform voters as much as anything else.
Farage is the only one who has really recognised the level of anger felt by many. Yes, he is exploiting that. That's his MO. I hope you don't mind though, Claire, your article has prompted a more detailed response for consideration.
https://timmorous.substack.com/p/considering-crossing-the-divide?r=2ldn9z&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Cc'd to your Substack - Tim, thank you so much for your response to my article. Apologies for the slow reply but I needed a moment to give it the special attention it deserves. Some thoughts - in no particular order.
You have amplified very persuasively some of the points I’d condensed into a piece attempting to cover many aspects of the issue.
Tribal hatred and simplification of the ‘other’ is a fairly endemic human social grouping activity (sadly). Consequently, the left, we agree, has also had a substantial hand in driving the preconceptions and polarisation which are so damaging to relations between the ‘two sides’.
Re your apt label ‘dismissal theory’ for arguments I raise about immigration, since, as we also agree, immigration is the explanatory rationale for Reform, progressive campaigners can’t simply sidestep it as ‘too toxic’’. It will come up on doorsteps anyway.
Nor can they ‘shout it down’ as misguided. Whilst there’s sometimes a case for ‘moving the conversation elsewhere’, campaigners need strategies for handling the topic that show sensitivity to opposing viewpoints, and are able to build respect and trust.
This is something progressives seem to find especially difficult re the cultural aspect of immigration anxieties – ‘I can put you right about resource expropriation by migrants. I can also engage with your anxieties about your community losing it’s character because of, say, retail warehouses, motorway systems or empty shops. But I can’t engage with your fears about your community becoming unrecognisable because of ethnic changes as that’s outright racism’. But we have to engage (constructively and sympathetically) - campaigning in ways that dismiss these fears simply increases the divide between us and Reformers.
Progressives also have to recognise the powerful persuasiveness of the ‘Britain First’ mindset in times of hardship such as our current cost of living crisis - having to share or give away resources you need to survive feels illogical and harmful. Hence, being told ‘you are morally bad or stupid if you refuse’ is a recipe for further polarised hostility. Similarly, whilst there are sound economic arguments for providing foreign aid, etc, demands for ‘reparation for the UK’s historic abuses’, seriously aggravates feelings of resentment and anger and, as you say, ‘feeds into’ already polarised positions.
I also fully agree with your points about ‘confidence’. Scepticism about expertise is now ubiquitous and applies not just to scientific research but also political competence – Mandygate is decisively ramming this point home in voter’s minds right now.
It perhaps doesn’t matter that the causes of this cultural doubt are a complex mix of justified reaction to political mistakes, radical right propaganda feeding conspiratorial thinking, and social media algorithmic tailoring and fragmentation of people’s thinking. The key point (for campaigners) is that there are rationales for the loss of confidence – premises from which voters’ doubts logically follow. Recognising and respecting how people’s beliefs make them feel are necessary preliminaries to successful communication. Leaping in with scornful attacks on the premise is counterproductive.
Also, doubt spreads to whole belief systems – from ‘some to all politicians are corrupt’, from ‘Covid vaccine testing was done in a hurry’ to ‘they might not be safe’, and from ‘some climate activists say I must never fly’ to ‘all climate activists are crazy’, etc. The more extreme end of left thinking contaminates how the left is perceived overall. There is a constant drive towards cognitive consonance in tribal thinking and very little nuance. Whilst this generalisation tendency isn’t rational, since progressives are just as guilty, we shouldn’t mock the opposition for doing the same.
Finally, whilst I agree that humility and re-thinking are vital steps progressives need to consider, I’d caution against descending into relativism. Acknowledging and respecting the causes of people’s beliefs doesn’t make them equally true. It’s about finding robust, Socratic ways of encouraging people to review their own attitudes (their beliefs and fears) - ways which step outside the damaging constraints of our preconceptions (on both sides).
As I mentioned at the end of the article, the Compass steering group of which I’m a member has been exploring ways to put these ideas into action as campaigners. We’ve formulated a set of prioritised themes, principles and tactics for interaction with Reformers that try to overcome some of the hefty campaigning barriers posed by polarisation and preconceptions. It’s very much work in progress and we don’t pretend it’s a magic bullet. But if you’re interested, please follow me on Substack where I’ll be sharing our video presentation which is just being finalised.
Once again, thank you for your very insightful response to my article.
Thank you for your response. My apologies for taking so long to respond, but life has a habit of getting in the way. I'd like to offer the following in response:
https://timmorous.substack.com/p/its-all-relative?r=2ldn9z&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thank you for your informative and thought-provoking article. I've long been convinced that arguing with Deform voters (or MAGAs in the US) with facts is fruitless. Their support for the far right is largely emotional and our arguments need to appeal in an emotional level. My thinking is that Deform's plans to replace the NHS with a US style insurance system is likely to gain the most traction. After all, the NHS is almost universally admired and something we are justifiably proud of.
Meanwhile distracting, from trump & his shenanigans with the Epstien fiasco...not all of us have fish brain memories.
A little longer than 9 mins for me..ha but thanks so much for sharing this well explained write up..it deffo got through to me..hope others do.