Dangerous populism

14 Nov
The inconsistency of Mr. Gaunt

On the 3rd of this month I wrote about how “Jon Gaunt is the most appalling hypocrite”. I pointed out that even though Gaunty had spent years railing against New Labour’s “nanny state”, his own moral politics demand even greater state control over our lives.

In this week’s column, Gaunt’s confused and duplicitous idea of state intervention was evident, as he tackles the tricky subject of Baby P – a story that has dominated the news cycle ::

A child needs a mum and a dad if possible.

[…]

The doctrine of always trying to keep the “family” together is garbage.

Jon walks his carefully constructed nuance with the words “if possible” and “always”. He carefully checks the box marked “golden rule of rightwing social populism: the traditional family unit is best”, and qualifies it by claiming that in fact this premise is “garbage”. So which is it, Jon?

Also, this “doctrine” you speak of?

Social services remove children from their unfit parents all the time, usually to the righteous indignation of rightwing populists like as Gaunt. That the nuclear family is best, and that social services merely meddle in people’s lives, has always been The Sun’s default position.

Never has there been a doctrine of keeping kids with abusive parents. As one of our writers wrote this week, working in the Social Services is a thankless career. You’re criticised for interfering in family life, yet you’re crucified in the national press if you’re too cautious in breaking up a family and a case turns into a criminal one.

Indeed, without even the slightest awareness of his own inconsistency, Gaunt for the second time in as many columns, refers to the Social Services (who he’s arguing weren’t strict or interventionist enough) as the “SS” – unsubtly comparing the department to Hitler’s Schutzstaffel (this was also, no doubt, a little dig at his current personal woes).

You can’t, in all seriousness, allude to the SS and then accuse the Social Service system of being wishy washy.

Now Jon Gaunt grew up in the care system. So he should be forgiven for having a complex view of the role of social services in our lives – but let’s be frank, a careful and informed opinion hardly fits Gaunt’s bombastic populism, does it?

This is the problem with this brand of lazy commentary: Gaunt and others are allowed to flit between attacking the nanny state for its social excess and demanding that heads roll when they’re accused of not interfering enough.

Commentators never adhere to the same consistency they demand from politicians: a blatant disregard for the privileged position they hold in our society.

Bringing politics into the debate

Also in the same column; Jon Gaunt condemns Gordon Brown for accusing David Cameron of trying to score political points, during a PMQ session that featured a heated exchange over failures in the case of Baby P.

There was no party politics. But Labour have been playing at social engineering for the past 11 years. I believe the ultimate responsibility lies with them and the Guardianistas that they have created in every section of public life.

So in the very same paragraph where he argues that Cameron wasn’t attempting to bring party politics into the debate, Gaunt launches into a partisan tirade against who he blames for the baby’s death.

Hypocrisy? Gaunty? Never!

So it’s not with the abusive mother and boyfriend, where the “the ultimate responsibility lies”, or indeed the Haringey social services, but with the government and those loathsome Guardian readers [meme alert!].

Of course everyone directly involved in Baby P’s case must be sacked.

How very big of you Jon. Without knowing the outcome of either the police or government investigations, Lord Gaunty feels qualified to demand the immediate termination of everyone involved.

Is this not lynch mob journalism at its very worst?

Originally written for The Sun – Tabloid Lies.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Dangerous populism”

  1. richard.bonnor@provident.co.uk November 14, 2008 at 10:17 pm #

    I love the headline…”Dangerous populism”. In other words it’s dangerous to express a view close to that of ordinary people. How very ZaNuLabour.

  2. richard.bonnor@provident.co.uk November 14, 2008 at 10:17 pm #

    I love the headline…”Dangerous populism”. In other words it’s dangerous to express a view close to that of ordinary people. How very ZaNuLabour.

  3. fish@politicalpenguin.org.uk November 15, 2008 at 3:32 am #

    Would you expect anything else?Perhaps what I find most questionable is that Cameron is seeking to play the ‘it’s all the fault of bureaucracy’ which fits in nicely with the right’s any public sector stance but fails to address what seems to be emerging as the real cause, that it was the non-adherence to all those meddling rules and petty minded busy body public sector procedures that was the problem in the first place.

  4. fish@politicalpenguin.org.uk November 15, 2008 at 3:32 am #

    Would you expect anything else?Perhaps what I find most questionable is that Cameron is seeking to play the ‘it’s all the fault of bureaucracy’ which fits in nicely with the right’s any public sector stance but fails to address what seems to be emerging as the real cause, that it was the non-adherence to all those meddling rules and petty minded busy body public sector procedures that was the problem in the first place.

  5. aaronsheath@gmail.com November 15, 2008 at 5:35 am #

    Womble,So you should love the headline. It refers to the dangerous practice of the media taking whatever position is popular, without a thought for consistency or the realities of a case.Also, who the fuck are you to take the position of “ordinary people”?What am I, a fucking <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marklar#Gelgameks“ rel=”nofollow”>Gelgamek?ZaNuLabour? Oh, do go away.Political Penguin,It’s of course an incredibly sad event, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that such cases are incredibly rare in this country. Social workers appear to be in the wrong, but they have incredibly heavy case loads – it’s amazing they do the work they do.I think as someone in a prominent media position, it’s important not to abuse this privilege, by piling in on a story when the facts are not yet clear. Yet hacks such as Gaunt have done exactly that.Mind you, Womble seems to think this is a great idea.

  6. aaronsheath@gmail.com November 15, 2008 at 5:35 am #

    Womble,So you should love the headline. It refers to the dangerous practice of the media taking whatever position is popular, without a thought for consistency or the realities of a case.Also, who the fuck are you to take the position of “ordinary people”?What am I, a fucking <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marklar#Gelgameks“ rel=”nofollow”>Gelgamek?ZaNuLabour? Oh, do go away.Political Penguin,It’s of course an incredibly sad event, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that such cases are incredibly rare in this country. Social workers appear to be in the wrong, but they have incredibly heavy case loads – it’s amazing they do the work they do.I think as someone in a prominent media position, it’s important not to abuse this privilege, by piling in on a story when the facts are not yet clear. Yet hacks such as Gaunt have done exactly that.Mind you, Womble seems to think this is a great idea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s