The end doesn't always justify the means
SO who's the "nasty party" now?
In the tit-for-tat of politics, the revelation that the Labour aide Damian McBride sought to spread false rumours about the personal lives of senior Tories and their wives, marks the crossing of a line.
Gordon Brown, apologising for the affair last week, was eager to portray McBride as a bad apple whose departure should draw a line under the affair. Now it's alleged that the schools minister Ed Balls presided over McBride's campaign.
It's disturbing to think that New Labour, who Tony Blair wanted to be 'whiter than white', has resorted to what Unison has called "childish venom".
How did it happen?
Talk to people who are passionately or professionally attached to one political party or another and you will find they share a tribal instinct. If you're Labour, the Tories are your enemies and vice versa.
(The same appears to be true of the Blairite and Brownite factions within Labour itself.) Such tribalism can be healthy - to a point.
But the McBride affair marks the point at which the tribal nature of politics has morphed into something much uglier, a total-war atmosphere in which there are no moral boundaries, only what you can get away with. Civilians (such as your opponents' wives) are fair game too.
Whatever lows you stoop to in your quest for victory are justified by the ultimate goal.
In such an atmosphere, the enemy becomes dehumanised. And why wouldn't they? If the Tories are the "nasty party", if Tories are scum, they deserve everything they get. So why not ruin their lives with salacious slanders?
The more tribal readers among you might think this is a tirade against Labour. It isn't.
That there are Tories who would stoop to similar tactics I do not doubt.
That's the problem. Many voters don't think one or the other party is scum, but that politicians generally are scum.
They will look at the McBride affair and feel disgusted with the whole sordid shooting match. It's exactly the sort of thing that feeds voters' apathy.
The culture needs to change from the top. In the age of leaks, careless emails and freedom of information, neither Brown nor Cameron can afford to let this fester.
More importantly, they should be ashamed of themselves if they do.
* Last week I had a go at feminists who complain about novels and rap lyrics while remaining quiet on the genuine misogyny suffered by their sisters abroad.
It was heartening, then, to see women bravely campaigning against a new law in Afghanistan.
The law sanctifies what most of us would call rape within marriage, giving husbands automatic conjugal rights every four days.
An exchange between the protesters and their counter-protesters, as reported in The Times, characterises the arguments well:
"Go home if your mothers and fathers are Muslims," shouted a cleric as the crowd pressed around the women.
One woman shouted back: "If you were Muslims, you wouldn't pass this law."
Who is the better Muslim, the one who advocates a sex slavery law, or the one who fights against it?
It's not for an infidel like me to say. But I know who deserves our support.
awolstenholme@ywng.co.uk
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Cleckheaton
Friday 10 February 2012
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: -6 C to 2 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: South east
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: -0 C to 1 C
Wind Speed: 8 mph
Wind direction: South west
