I have taken to watching Cathy Newman’s show on Sky News. A slightly strange beast, it has some news but most of it is Cathy and a couple of her chums discussing the day’s events. I say chums because although there is always a leftie and a rightie, the former is of the “don’t scare the horses” variety, and the latter could be invited to one of those mythical “North London dinner parties”. The guest list seems to be “Lib-Dem” adjacent with the exception of Kwasi Kwarteng, doomed forever to be a media punching bag, the modern version of an Ancient Greek punishment.
A regular guest is Thangam Debbonaire, a Labour peer and former (perhaps current) member with Ms Newman of the musical ensemble the “Statutory Instruments” – the use of the term “chum” earlier was not entirely coincidental.
As one might expect for a current affairs programme, Reform UK features not infrequently, if not often favourably. Despite the fact that the party has been leading the polls since about the last election, and despite the fact that its leader has been omnipresent in British politics since at least the 2010s, the Noble Baroness appears to believe that his name is “Nigel Farridge”.
An old teacher once said that you could tell which countries Britain liked by which leaders’ names BBC presenters had bothered to learn how to pronounce. We may assume that Baroness Debonnaire is not a great fan of our Nige and for those slow on the uptake, the look of utter contempt which generally crosses her face when forced to mention He Who Must Not Be Named Correctly serves to confirm the impression. It may also insulate her from the suggestion that she’s just a bit dim. Or deaf.
The Noble Baroness’ role in this article is not that of the former Chancellor in a TV studio. She is merely an example. For one of the trends, I think, in our public discourse, is the increased frequency with which we sneer at our out-group. I am most aware of this when it comes from the left, those of that persuasion may be able to adduce examples from the right. To the presenters of The News Agents, Brexiteers should be wards of the state, so incapable are they of acting in their own interests. Everyday my Facebook feed is full of “jokes” about “gammon” sharing a brain cell and we don’t need to get started on Emily Thornberry, probably suffering hives from the imminent start of the World Cup.
The sign, I was told, of a first-rate mind was that it could hold two opposing ideas in tension without needing to collapse them into one. There are usually answers, rarely is there an answer.
This is not a quality one observes in many of those who clutter the nation’s airwaves. Not only is there a solution to a problem, there is only one. Which is clear to all. Those who don’t see it must, therefore, be intellectually sub-normal, or malign. Perhaps both. Those suffering from such afflictions are not people to whom one needs to pay attention or to allow a seat at the table. Their purpose, if they have one, is as a source of entertainment for their betters. If they dare to speak up, they need to be slapped back down – “I will take no lectures from…” is one of the least attractive phrases in the English language.
The rule of an intellectual elite has been seductive to intellectuals (real and self-described) since at least the time of Plato. But the father of Western Philosophy went to great lengths in his fantasy Republic to ensure that the elite actually would be elite. British politics has, for perfectly decent democratic reasons, been rather less good at this. Baroness Debonnaire was ennobled because, against the backdrop of a Labour landslide, she contrived to lose her seat. Emily Thornberry practised as a barrister for twenty years but never took silk. Led By Donkeys may, for all I know, be charming people, but there is no evidence they have ever set the world alight. They may sneer at their inferiors, but they are not doing so from a great height.
They may be right that they have been more successful than John Smith, taking his whippet to the bookies in some increasingly derelict former pit village, but modern discourse is just as good at sneering up as it is at sneering down. Tune into most discussion programmes, and you will be forgiven for thinking that “Elon Musk” is a synonym for “evil moron”. That’s the Elon Musk who founded Paypal, Tesla, Starlink and SpaceX. So far. Not the sort of backstory that’s ten a penny on the green benches or the green room sofa.
If we wanted to prove that “mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself”, what would we do differently?
The biggest wreath at David Niven’s funeral was sent by the porters of Heathrow Airport. Living most of his life as a tax exile, it is reasonable to assume he didn’t have much in common with the unionised workforce of 1970s Britain. No matter. “The finest gentleman who ever walked through these halls,” read the card. “He made a porter feel like a king.”
Borderline posh, possible war hero (he was always reticent about his activities) and a bona-fide movie star, Niven had nothing to prove. He was secure in his position and in himself. He could treat people as equals because he had no need to treat himself as superior. Not trapped in some zero-sum game of status, he could treat people with respect, as who they were.
For sneering is, at its heart, a status claim. It says the sneerer occupies the high ground, that they can look down on others. That they need to is, of course, good reason for others to look down on them.
“Those who matter don’t care [about their status] and those who care [about their status] don’t matter.”
Stewart Slater works in Finance. He is now also on Substack, where you are welcome to follow him.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
No surprises there about those characters! That ex(?)-C4 News presenter has a very aggressive style of ‘leading’ questioning that was famously challenged by Jordan Peterson.
Perhaps it might be wiser and more positive to avoid altogether the weird world of modern mainstream and online social media, as they seem to be largely a poisonous algorithm-biased environment designed to capture and manipulate people’s minds to create precisely the type of attitude that you so accurately describe. Leave those types to bicker amongst themselves!
We never use such media, minimise our exposure to mainstream ‘news’ and the Internet, concentrate on meeting and talking to real people, pursue traditional pastimes and enjoy the natural environment; I suspect we’re the happier for doing so.
This article was an utter delight to read, from start to finish, and I thank you.