Guilt by association?

There was some effort made at the time of the killing of an MP -- Jo Cox-- to link the crime to the Brexit vote and it has been renewed today in the Guardian (one of several pieces in fact), following the conviction and sentencing of the murderer

The argument has a classic form. The judicial facts about the case, such as they are, and the sentence are reported in some detail, and the Brexit angle is inserted into the main narrative as if it is also authoritative.

The person who killed Cox (Mair) had a long history of interest in violence and in right-wing politics extending over some years. He was a 'slow-burn' terrorist.

Yet the Guardian wants to add that :

[Although] The seeds of the hatred that drove him to murder his MP, Jo Cox, appear to have been sown years earlier, when he began to acquire the means to kill. They germinated during the febrile countdown to the EU referendum.

.... Just hours before the murder, Ukip unveiled its infamous “breaking point” anti-immigration poster

There is no actual evidence reported during the court proceedings to support the 'Brexit germination' line as far as I know, although it is perfectly possible of course. The defendant said nothing about his motives  -- indeed, he said nothing at all. The line was widely asserted at the time, in several variants -- even if Brexit was not an actual cause of the murder, the nasty 'atmosphere' created by the referendum itself was responsible

The whole area of Yorkshire where the murder took place was known as a location for right-wing activism, apparently:

police discovered 54 homemade bombs and a dozen firearms at a house in Batley. The occupant, Terence Gavan, a BNP member, was jailed for 11 years after admitting a series of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. The court heard that Gavan showed “strong hostility” towards immigrants.

but then 

It appears that Mair, however, had little to do with such groups, perhaps because he was so reclusive. He preferred his relationships with the far right to be long-distance affairs.

So far nice and 'balanced' . The Guardina also reports

Mair himself claimed to be in need of treatment for mental health problems

Turning to the Brexit germination 4line, though, The Guardian puts more sentences side-by side to suggest a connection:

It appears that Mair also woke up one day and decided he was going to do it.

Cox was a vocal supporter of the remain campaign. Her constituency is a place where anti-European feelings run high, and each day during the referendum campaign, Mair was surrounded by red and orange Vote Leave notices. St George’s cross flags fluttered from windows. His “death to traitors” outburst during his first court appearance shows he regarded Cox as one of “the collaborators”, the white people who had betrayed their race.

 ...

He did [the murder] according to the eyewitness, while saying: “Britain first, keep Britain independent, Britain will always come first.”

Finally, he yelled: “This is for Britain.”

OK -- it is all plausible enough, but it is just asserted that Brexit and racism went together, as usual. The Guardian couldn't just report the murder, nasty and unsettling as it was, without trying to hook it up to their post-Brexit line, whether it actually fitted or not. The article makes no attempt to assess 'objectively' the importance of the Brexit germination factor, and offers no counters, unlike the discussion of all the other factors. Cox has to be not only a victim, as if that is not bad enough, but a martyr.

Bias and ideology at the BBC

The BBC is in some trouble for interviewing Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front in France. People (!) have complained that she should not be offered a platform. An article today in the Graun says the BBC has always favoured right-wing pro-business spokespersons, ever since its own problems with Mrs Thatcher and its own corporatization.

In particular Mills argues that:

Research by Cardiff University found that the two sides of the official [Referendum] campaign were evenly represented in TV news... But overall the voices of the right dominated, with the Conservatives and Ukip making up almost 80% of political sources. Loughborough University’s research produced similar findings, while the Cardiff researchers found that statistical claims made by campaigners were challenged in fewer than one in five cases.

How is this reconcilable with my own views that the BBC displayed a relentless socially liberal stance in favour of Remain? 

Could be I'm wrong. Could be that even a preponderance of Conservative and UKIP people did not dent the liberal ideology. Were the Conservatives pro-Brexit or pro-Remain as well as 'right wing'? What if the BBC made Brexiteers look foolish or misguided or just marginal? Earlier work by Glasgow University famously showed there were lots of ways to devalue a spokesperson even while allocating  a 'balanced' amount of time -- and this blog offers some examples: interviewers interrupt, bully amateurs, cut people off, demand answers to silly questions, get angry and so on.

Meanwhile, Guardina letter-writers and their cultural politics continue to amuse. My favourite is not on the website yet but it says: 

...we should seek inspiration from the recent past. The "You say you want a revolution?" exhibition at the V&A museum charts the exhilarating optimism of the late 1960s, when people tried to create a better world through music, fashion and positive social change. We must work to restore that spirit of hope.

The Trumpets Shall Sound...

So Trump wins, and my only pleasure is in further confusion among metropolitan luvvies on the British media who had assured themselves, and tried to assure us, that Clinton would do it. Jon Snow on C4 News is normally excellent, thoughtful and courageous, but I have now seen him blow it badly on two occasions -- when asking in an exasperated tone how anyone could possibly support Trump who was so obviously unpleasant and rude to women and a thoroughly wrong sort of chap -- and over Brexit when he got very angry with a black female Brexiteer.

I expect Evan Daivs on Newsnight,and the entrire staff of the Guardian will be in shock today too. That's twice they have done their level best to campaign against a political development, even risking their own claims to 'objectivity', and failed to realise that the more they push, the more resistance they generate. No doubt the BBC will try to regain its impartiality as it has done with Brexit (not quite), but they must be wetting themselves about the chance of further exits from the EU -- Frexit, Itexit, maybe even Grexit again.

The Guardian webpage has it all.Just read the bylines -- misogyny, fear, liberals must only blame themselves etc. Only Larry Elliott sees it as a backlash against globalisation, and sees some relief in the ending of Obama's awful trade deals like TTIP. Expect added bereavement -- denial (already happened on Morning TV where the presenters argued Trump didn't really mean it and was only acting tough for the campaign), followed by anger etc.

Elliott is right to say this is a backlash. Habermas predicted as much at the start of the neo-lliberal turn, but warned against right-wing hijack of the blue-collar backlash. That is still the danger. There is also the possibility that Trump will confine himself to a few symbolic acts of nastiness, probably against Mexico, while capitalism will sail on as ever into a new much more discreet globalised future.

Another bit of cheer. The Guardian, which God preserve, has an item about how Brexit has led to higher divorce rates. The article admits about 2/3 of the way through, that other factors might be involved too. Luckily, counsellors will offer help to everyone and offer couples places in 'divorce hotels' says a 'family mediator'.

Scandalum magnatum

A few days ago, the High Court decided that the UK Government was not entitled to trigger Article 50 without Parliamentary discussion -- or at least that was how it has been interpreted. As we have no written constittuion, the courts have some leeway to decide on these matters

Predictably, the Daily Mail led with a large headline portraying the judges as 'Enemies of the People' and used their biographies to add shaming details of their elite backgrounds and, in one case, being a gay ex-Olympic fencer. Equally predictably, luvvies responded with a lot of windy stuff about the independence of the judiciary and the sovereignty of Parliament: both sides accused the other of being hypocritical about sovereignty.Oddly enough, it was the Mail's political correpondent who raised the possibility that judges might well have Establishment political values -- and he was shouted down by the presenter of Newsnight and the opposing speaker, a Labour MP who believes the judiciary are independent! Both seemed shocked that anyone could not see that. Strangely, lots of people remained unconvinced.

Both sides clearly lack any notion of ideology as usual, that would permit BOTH an 'independent' opinion (ie one held without being told to do so by politicians) and a 'biased' one (where something just appears obviously and unconsciously 'right').

Of course,there is a strong suspicion that the victory in the High Court (still subject to appeal in the Supreme Court) was really about a strategy to delay Article 50, in the hope that people will change their mind OR in order to bombard the Government with all sorts of amendments and compromises to achieve the so-called 'soft Brexit' option. Conspiracy seems in the air.

As a result, a secondary worry has emerged for luvvies, based on the treasonous tendencies of the lower orders to question even judges' decisions -- is Britain so divided that it will get really nasty as what we might call a 'legitimation crisis' deepens. This clearly worries the Observer, who has also joined in the chorus saying that the Government must strongly condemn critcisms of the judiciary (a routine statement was not enough) and reassert its constitutional role.