Thoughts on Liberalism and Religion

Former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron has recently claimed that liberals who are not tolerant of religious views are illiberal and that liberalism had “eaten itself”.  He went on to say (a little bizarrely) that liberalism is only liberal as long as it is grounded in Christianity – the opinion piece on The Guardian can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/liberalism-eaten-itself-british-religious-liberty-christianity-tim-farron

In truth, the Guardian opinion piece is an edited version of a longer speech he gave to a Christian think-tank called Theos and removes much of the context, but nonetheless I found myself disagreeing with him over some of the main points even within the context of the entire speech.  Especially the claims that liberalism has “eaten itself” (which he convolutedly explains but I take to mean that liberalism has triumphed in becoming the dominant ideology but in its success has abandoned its founding principle - freedom of religion – so its success is meaningless).

I’ll set out my stall: I'm a liberal and I’m also an atheist. I believe, that broadly across the world, religion does more harm than good and freedom from religion is fast becoming more desirable than freedom of religion.  Shortly after Tim Farron was elected leader of the party in 2015 (and after I voted for him) I challenged him on his views on gay sex.

I’m glad I voted for him he was an outstanding leader.

I enjoyed reading his full speech and I really admire the strength of devotion he has to his faith. Sometimes, I wish I could have the unwavering trust and hope of the religious believer but I am just not wired that way.  I keep an open mind and I’m cautiously optimistic; but I’m critical, I demand evidence, and I try to see the world as it is not how I’d like it to be.

It was thought provoking to read Tim’s vehement discussion of what faith means to him, but it is something that is completely alien to me.  His claims about Christianity representing the truth may be his reality, but I find it baffling and not at all convincing.  He spoke a little about atheism and secularism and I could write hundreds of words of analysis disagreeing with him.

But despite this, I think that our own personal ideas of liberalism are almost identical: freedom, equality, rule of law. 

The difference is that Tim’s liberalism originates from his devotion to Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ; mine comes from the belief that individuals are sovereign and should be empowered to be the best they can be, and to lift others up too. Maybe my concept of liberalism is rooted in secularism, I’ve never really thought about it like that before – it’s simply how I’ve come to see world.

Religious faith is an issue where we can agree to disagree.  But for Tim to now call out liberalism itself, at a time when it is under threat from some real bad guys around the world, sounds like sour grapes.

Many of Tim’s assessments of liberalism are correct: it fosters debate so can mean giving and taking criticism and sometimes offence; but, Tim – this applies to your beliefs and world views as well. 

Challenging Tim Farron’s (or any other religious individual) position with regards to gay sex doesn’t mean you’re intolerant or illiberal, it means you’re participating in a debate in a democracy; and if religious doctrines come under attack then that’s part and parcel with living in a liberal democracy – no beliefs or ideas are protected.  

Ultimately, there’s a missing link in Farron’s analysis of the state of liberalism and faith: times change - religion is on the way out.  More than half the UK identifies as being non-religious and there are several western democracies where religion is on course to become extinct.  Liberalism is an old ideology, it’s important to take into account the context in which it exists, and that context is different now from the time of the nonconformist evangelical Christians Tim claims founded British liberalism.  It is one thing to extemporise on the state of Christianity and liberalism to an audience at an event hosted by a Christian think-tank, but the reality in broader society is very different.  

Liberalism's religious history does not mean it has a religious present, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee it a religious future.  In my opinion, liberalism hasn’t changed and it hasn’t become any less tolerant; rather the context in which it now exists is increasingly less religious which has resulted in Tim’s dilemma.  Tim Farron was challenged on his views on gay sex not out of intolerance but because a nonreligious society can’t comprehend such a devout commitment to religious doctrine – especially when it could be so easily interpreted (and as it ended up being spun by the media) as a liberal leader who wasn’t actually very liberal.  Of course, as in any debate (especially with social media), there are those who will be intolerant or nasty, but you can’t conclude from these individuals that the entire ideology of liberalism has lost its way.

More broadly, Farron’s dilemma is a screenshot of a 21^st century ideological collision: the remnants of a religious and conservative country facing the new reality of non-religion and the growing call for secularisation that will surely follow. The result is religious people feeling victimised because their beliefs no longer command authority or enjoy the obscene privilege they once had in British life - especially that of thinking they have an infallible claim to morality and understanding the human condition.

In its moderate forms religious belief gives fulfilment to so many people.  However, religion is routinely used as weapon to crush vulnerable or minority groups, historically in this country, and also in the present day in countries around the world. 

Tim goes on to argue that this country doesn’t have shared values, but I think a better phrase is that this country doesn’t have a shared ideology.  Peace, tolerance, individuality, respect for life – these values, irrespective of faith, are shared by the majority of people in the UK: it’s our collective psyche that liberal Britain has bestowed upon us.

Liberalism will continue to be liberal even as religion declines.  And if you’re an atheist like me, you would argue that non-religion creates an even better foundation for liberal values as people are free from dogma, conformism, and can think as individuals.

Liberalism hasn’t “eaten itself”.  It’s all part of the ongoing cycle of agreeing to disagree, of living to let live.  There’s no need for liberals to take aim at each other; we’re wasting shots while far-right authoritarianism is left to thrive so contently.

Do We Idolise Corbyn too Much?

Jeremy Corbyn stunned the critics and the pundits (and pretty much everyone) in the election in June and denied the Tories a majority in Westminster.  The danger of Tory hubris was spelled out to Theresa May (as it was to David Cameron before her) as she squandered her 20 point lead in the polls and with it her half-functioning government.  It was an election result of limitations: not bad enough for the Tories to lose; not good enough for Labour to win.  But what’s clear is that Corbyn has secured his place as Labour leader and is beginning to set the agenda.  

His success has largely been put down to the support of young people.  According to voting data analysis by YouGov, the overwhelming majority of young people voted Labour in June.  66% of 18-19 year olds (first time voters), 62% of people aged 20-24, and 63% of people aged 25-29 all voted Labour.  Voter turnout for those aged 18-19 was 57% which was an increase - though still nothing compared to an 84% turnout for people over the age of 70, 19% of whom voted Labour.

There are ironies to Corbyn’s success amongst young people.  He is an old-fashioned socialist who has appealed to a young generation born and bred in neoliberal Britain - but maybe this is why he has done well.

For the first time in a long time, young people in this country feel like they have something to believe in: they voted for Corbyn because he gave them something to vote for.  What exactly, is difficult to define.  An ardent supporter would say ‘hope’.  A disinterested voter might simply say an alternative to the Tories.

Tuition fees seems to have been assigned as the defining issue for young voters: Corbyn hates tuition fees; young people love that.  This generalisation may or may not be true, but Labour certainly did unexpectedly well in some university cities such as Canterbury which has a student population of over 40,000.  Corbyn lured the students in by promising to immediately abolish tuition fees if elected.   

But an old mantra rings out: if it sounds too good to be true - then it probably is. Not long after the election it looked as though the shine was starting to come off with some in the Labour shadow cabinet back-tracking on this promise. 

Another irony in Corbyn’s success with the younger generation is Brexit.  We have given a resounding thumbs down to that idea, yet a thumbs up to Corbyn who cannot be described as pro-European.  His referendum campaign was seen as lacklustre: in the run up to the vote he gave the EU an uninspiring 7/10 and nearly half of Labour voters didn’t even know what the party’s position was.  Even now, Labour’s position on some Brexit issues such as membership of the single market is unclear.

Nonetheless people aged 18-30 were unfazed.  As the election came to its climax it was dominated by domestic issues and, after the Tories disastrous ‘dementia tax’, Labour had closed the gap.  Although this begs the question: is Corbyn a competent and popular PM in waiting, or is he just a means of punishing the Tories after seven years of austerity and Brexit backstabbing?

Corbyn is a survivor, that cannot be denied.  In two years he has fought and survived two leadership contests, two rounds of local elections, the EU referendum, a by-election defeat, as well as the election in June; many in his party have stabbed him in the front; the right-wing press have run a hate campaign against him.  And still he stands tall.  He is made of strong stuff and many people of all ages admire that.  He certainly comes across as having honesty and integrity. 

There is a humane quality about him that shines in comparison to the May-bot.  We see the pictures of him at his allotment and we think of our Grandpa: humble and homely. 

So if the young want to idolise Corbyn, let them.  The up and coming generation has been excluded and punished by a vacuous and cynical political elite whose legacy is leaving us worse off than our parents.  We’ll take the promises of a politician who seems to have honest goodwill, who seems to genuinely care – we have little else.

It is, however, essential that we are vigilant.  Corbyn is, after all, a politician and we must make sure he delivers what he promises; we must avoid blind faith because he says what we want to hear.  And most importantly, young peoples’ involvement in politics must be bigger than one man.  A sustained engagement in democracy from the new generation will be the thing to create real change.

_______________________________________________

This article originally appeared in The Strathclyde Telegraph: https://strathclydetelegraph.com/2017/11/18/do-we-idolise-corbyn-too-much/ 

Rejoice for Australia! But Referendums on Social Issues Must Not be the New Normal

The majority of Australians have backed equal marriage in a postal vote survey: 61.5% of Aussies endorsed the rights of LGBT+ citizens. It is now over to the Australian parliament to implement the will of the people.

LGBT+ Aussies and allies rejoice after a deserved victory. But it is sad that this referendum had to happen at all.

I realise that to most, holding the referendum was just sensible politics and a civilised means to settle a debate in a democracy. But this vote really was petty: someone’s private relationship is neither a political or democratic concern. It’s not something to be deliberated on by the masses; you’re dealing with people’s profound personal identities and relationships – things that are fundamental to their lives.  Someone’s basic right to exist as themselves in society is not another ‘issue of the day’.

It is completely mad that an anonymous same-sex couple living somewhere in Australia who want to get married had to consult the entire voting population of the country.

With referendums on social issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, the mass electorate are being given the power to decide how much freedom individuals from minority groups can enjoy; essentially granting them permission to be equal citizens. Imagine a heterosexual relationship where the two individuals wanted to commit to each other for the long-term, but first they needed the approval of the majority of voters. 

Nonetheless it’s understandable why Australia’s referendum took place; it’s the principle of it that’s frustrating. The referendum was held to help ensure the law passes through Australia’s parliament as, if successful, all politicians would feel obliged to respect the will of the people. 

However few people will really appreciate that it was a dangerous game to play.

It seems as though the only way the vote could have worked out positively for Australia’s LGBT+ community is with an overwhelming vote in favour of same-sex marriage.  A close vote in favour would have resulted in a victory, but it would then be set in stone that a near majority of the electorate are not in favour of the happiness and fulfilment of LGBT+ individuals.  The campaign and debate can be kept as constructive as possible but inevitably it will mobilise bigots and homophobes – these people should not be given any pretext to spout their bile.  It also gives odious religious groups one last-ditch attempt to be relevant in the 21^st century; sensible people will tolerate their ramblings only out of politeness. 

The LGBT+ community used the vote as a means of empowerment and to display strength and hope, encouraging all allies to join in their campaign.  But the referendum will have the effect of making some LGBT+ individuals feel self-conscious, even unsafe.  It will be hard for some people in the broader public to actually contemplate the damage a no vote could have done to individuals and the community.

Try to imagine what it would feel like to have your own country democratically reject you.

Past the fray and the vitriol and the debates, most social issues boil down to an old mantra: live and let live.  It’s a shame that people can’t collectively understand this and opt for careless and divisive referendums. All arguments against same-sex marriage eventually whittle down to prejudice or irrelevance.  We have to now accept that there can be no debate that every individual is equal and entitled to a life of peace, freedom, and individuality.  By legalising same-sex marriage without a referendum, governments have the opportunity to lead by example and set an agenda of tolerance.

Now, the world will be watching Ireland as it debates the issue of abortion ahead of a referendum in 2018 asking the people if they think it should be legalised. Necessary for progressive change, perhaps; but my heart is with the women who take up the cause and have to fight for their most basic rights. In many respects more contentious than equal marriage, this debate will be fraught with difficulty. Private and personal lives will be scrutinised and debated in a cruel public and political arena - it should never have come to this.

_________________________________________

This article originally appeared in Liberal Democrat Voice: https://www.libdemvoice.org/rejoice-for-australia-but-referendums-on-social-issues-must-not-be-the-new-normal-55893.html

Review: Oxjam

Oxjam Rocks Glasgow and Raises Thousands 

Oxjam rolled into Glasgow on Saturday the 14th of October - and when I saw the red and pink Oxjam banners illuminating the bars and buildings of Sauchiehall Street I knew this would be an extraordinary night out in Glasgow.

Oxjam is a music and arts festival that brings together local talent to perform in venues across the city to raise money for Oxfam’s life-saving work.  The event started in 2006 and this year there were 38 Oxjam festivals across the UK.

After 12 years Oxjam is the biggest grassroots music festival in the UK.

Well Happy Workshop

Glasgow’s festival took place over 8 much-loved venues in the city centre and each offered something unique.  Getting into the mood right from the start in The Griffin bar was the Well Happy Workshop with their session of Laughter Yoga.  This was very much an interactive event with strangers encouraged to exchange jokes, high-five, meet and greet in a series of exercises designed to encourage laughter.  The group explained the method behind the madness: laughter releases endorphins and in turn leads to improved wellbeing.  Laughter Yoga brought strangers together in typical Glaswegian style; and another performance due later in the evening with a few tipsy Scots would have been utter hilarity! 

A little over town was something different.  The basement of iCafe on Sauchiehall Street was an acoustic sanctuary of guitars with hand-crafted lyrics, as well as poetry and spoken word and some comedy too.  A selection Glasgow’s up and coming singers performed their music drawing on contemporary and retro influences, often in a busking style that is so famous in this city.  The spoken word poets brought a blend of the serious and the stupid, and always the Scottish slant for the home crowd.

Mandulu and Hephzibah

I caught up with one singing duo, Mandulu and Hephzibah, made up of Sabrina Mandulu and Erin Hephzibah (both 19 and from Pollock).  The girls have known each other since school and have always been involved in arts and performing, in 2016 they became a duo with their own material and set lists that have taken them to places like New York.  They reflected on their performance: “We both enjoyed our performance, and hopefully our audience did too. We got great responses and support from them and the staff so it was a very relaxed and enjoyable day. We both would like the opportunity to work with Oxfam and other charities in the future”.

The band has an exciting few months ahead: “On the 20th of October we will be supporting Paolo Nutini at the Paisley Abbey as part of the Spree Festival in Paisley, something we are overjoyed about.”

The Ronains

Speaking to the bands and listening to the spoken word artists inspired from Glasgow’s art scene, you realise Oxjam’s very unique offer: bands and artists get a platform in Glasgow and the punters get a memorable and diverse Saturday night out; all the while, as the music dies down and the revellers sing-on home, Oxfam is a little closer to ending world poverty for good - local music, global impact.

With Oxjam being all about showcasing Glasgow’s musical and artistic talent, the Art School was a fitting venue for the main stage in the evening.  One band playing were The Ronains who describe themselves as a “filthy mix of classic rock, glam and grunge” – and they wowed the Art School crowd with this indie mix.  They were followed by bands Static Union, The Belafonte, and Ocevns jamming well into the night and gave performances worthy of the biggest venues in Glasgow.

I could only just scratch the surface of Oxjam’s Glasgow Takeover because there was so much going on – and with the Oxjam wristband party-goers had access to all of it and every venue. Manager Lindsey McGhie spoke to me afterwards about the night which raised just under £3,500: “Oxjam Glasgow was a huge success again due to hard work of the volunteers, musicians, venues, sound & light companies and local businesses.  And, yet again, the people of Glasgow turned out to support our cause in their hundreds.  Thank you!”

Check out Oxjam’s Glasgow Takeover Facebook page for more info, photos and videos: https://www.facebook.com/OxjamGlasgowTakeover/

_______________________________________________

This article origanlly appeared on the Oxfam Scotland website: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/scotland/blog/2017/10/oxjamreview

Discovering Conference

On the 11^th of November, the Scottish Liberal Democrat autumn conference was held for another year in Dunfermline. It’s fitting our conference returns to this historic Scottish town as Scotland has always been a liberal country at heart: Braveheart, after all, was about freedom, more than nationalism.

This was my first party conference and I was immediately struck by how homely and welcoming the event was. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are a close-knit party – one advantage of being small in number (in comparison to other parties) – where old friends are reunited and strangers are simply undiscovered new friends.

The agenda was packed and diverse. One of the highlights included hearing from the WASPI women. They told us their personal experiences when they unexpectedly discovered they would not get their state pension when they thought they would after the age was raised to 65 to align with mens’. Many women are now struggling and having to take up part-time jobs or take out loans to get by until they can receive their pension. The conference rightfully voted for measures to put justice for the WASPI women on the Lib Dem agenda.

Willie Rennie, Jo Swinson, Alistair Carmichael, Christine Jardine and Alex-Cole Hamilton invigorated party members with articulate, powerful speeches – all of us returned to our constituencies with a renewed sense of purpose and belief in Liberal Democrat values.

The Scottish Young Liberals had three motions passed: introducing civil education in schools, increasing the involvement of young people in public service, and introducing gender neutral school uniforms in every school.

As a Young Liberal myself, it was exciting to see the future of our party, both its membership and its vision, be strongly represented; as well as being endorsed so positively by all party members.

I decided to step up in the debate about introducing civil education in schools by speaking on the main stage to strongly support the motion, as well as putting forward the idea that media literacy should also be taught as part of a curriculum of civil education.

My colleague from the East Renfrewshire Lib Dems told me I was the first person from the local party to speak at a conference in about 40 years.

I joined the Liberal Democrats in 2015 after the general election (inspired by Nick Clegg’s dignified and passionate resignation speech as party leader) and I was expecting simply to receive some emails updating me on the party’s work. Just over two years later I have campaigned for local candidates, been interviewed for a comms job in Holyrood with the Scottish Lib Dems, I’ve been a council candidate in May, and recently I spoke at my first party conference in Dunfermline.

I never imagined how involving and inclusive the party would be.

Before joining the Liberal Democrats, I always thought that politics was something that other people did; since joining I have realised that politics is for anyone that chooses to take part. I had the opportunity at conference to stand up and be heard – it was one of the most empowering moments of my life.

___________________________________________________

This article origanlly appeared in Liberal Democrat Voice: https://www.libdemvoice.org/discovering-conference-55847.html

Here's to the Election Losers

I ran in a hopeless seat in the recent council elections, lost spectacularly, and we’re all the better for it

Democracy only works because we have losers – so many losers. So many beautiful and inspiring losers who know they have no chance but stand in elections anyway because they want to fight for what they believe in, to have their voice heard, and because they know there’s a (possibly tiny) group who feel the same way and need a champion.

Between the local and general elections in the space of just over a month, thousands of ordinary men and women will stand for a party or as an independent, and lose spectacularly. As I did.

My return in the council election was meagre, but the experience was humbling and fascinating. Every party has constituencies where they don’t have a look in (especially in a General Election with first past the post) but nonetheless the local party prepares candidates, drafts leaflets and press releases, and maybe braves the doorsteps - all in the spirit of democracy.

They do their best but prepare for the worst because democracy isn’t really about who wins. Democracy is about representation and democracy is about choice, whether that’s choosing who we elect to represent us in parliaments, assemblies, councils; or being a representative on the ballot paper so people actually have a choice in the first place.

I discovered that people understand this.

I was nervous about heading out on the campaign trail because I knew that politics was contentious, but when I spoke to people the most common response was "good for you". 

I was pleasantly bemused: some told me they weren’t going to vote for me but thanked me for the leaflet and promised to have a read; others told me they were glad to see a young person getting involved; everyone seemed to appreciate being able to talk to a candidate.

Whether they intended to vote for me or not, people liked the idea of someone from their community putting themselves forward to represent them.

I even got to attend the count. Although it sounds like a dinner time quiz show, being a contestant at 'The Count' was democracy in action. Seeing the votes pouring out the black boxes, being sorted for scanning, watching them appear on the computer screens and the amazement at seeing (occasionally) my name with a 1 or even a 2 – incredible to think that strangers put their trust in me.

There was an atmosphere of friendly competition, well-wishing and handshakes. Party politics is vitriolic but it doesn’t have to be. If we promote a positive political climate more people will participate and discover more about their values, communities, and themselves.

We need them. The countries that only have political winners are not democracies.

Isn’t it odd to think about the people who stand against the prominent politicians – Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May, cabinet ministers – who all probably have safe seats, but they don’t go uncontested; indeed, Lord Buckethead is running against May at the upcoming General Election, and I wish him well. 

You see the videos and the photos of these politicians in the sports hall, making their acceptance speeches, with their 25,000 majority, and the other candidates staring at the ground. It takes guts to put yourself forward, especially if you know it’s hopeless.

So here’s to them - the losers!

The losers fill the void between the political establishment and the people because they remind us that most politicians are just ordinary folk as well, our neighbours in the community; though the political elite would do well to remember this.

The losers remind us where politics (at least should) begin and end: with people.

_______________________________

This article originally appeared in Common Space: https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/11103/chris-park-here-s-election-losers 

Editor in Mischief

Let’s first take a moment to offer our congratulations to the Right Honourable George Osborne, MP for Tatton, for securing a sixth job in such a competitive market where many struggle to get a foothold and often find them themselves in low-skilled, under-payed jobs.  He’s had a hard time of it!

In May, Osborne will become the editor of The Evening Standard – a London newspaper with a circulation of nearly 1m and a readership of nearly double that.  Adding to his bursting resume which also includes a stint at a US fund management firm where he rakes in £650,000 p.a. for four days work a month.

You can’t help but feel Britain’s meritocracy has gone to the dogs when the City elite - the Ye Olde English Oxbridge grads born into rural affluence - continually monopolise the highest offices of public life.  In fact, we’ve been told he only applied for the job when friends contacted him to ask for advice with their own applications – I suspect these friendships are no longer blossoming!

I realise this post risks turning into a cynical pseudo-Marxist analysis, but the whole thing just stinks.  It’s the exact opposite of what we’re taught (at least in state schools) that getting a job, especially one as prestigious as the position of editor, is based on merit, skills, experience, etc.  I have my Journalism 1a class from first year of uni - quite literally making me more qualified to do this job than Osborne.

I don’t totally discredit Osborne’s competency for this role.  I’m sure he’ll be useful when it comes to the broad strategic direction of the paper and its finances, and I understand there’s different routes into jobs.

But my understanding of the position of editor (maybe this is now old-fashioned) is a job rooted in the fundamentals of journalism – indeed the very highest position in a news outlet.  I would be curious to know if Osborne was familiar with the news writing formula; or if he knows the best sub-editing techniques; or if he knows the essence of a good feature article; or the basic legal dilemmas faced by journalists every day.  How he can call himself an editor without even a basic knowledge of journalism (never mind practical experience) seems hard to believe.  I imagine his role at the Evening Standard will be more ceremonial, giving a seal of approval, deciding the paper’s broad direction – a manager rather than an editor.

Maybe Osborne can find a way to adapt his competencies; but his decision to stay on as an MP is incredible.  Being a member of parliament is more than a full-time job - if you’re an MP who doesn’t understand this then you are a terrible MP.  To some extent, it can be appropriate for an MP to have another job; but George Osborne’s current CV is incredulous.  He is either arrogant to the point of disbelief or totally naïve about what being the editor of a paper with a circulation of 1m will involve: it can be a 100 hour week according to some editors.  His justification for taking the job because he can ‘edit the paper in the morning and vote in the afternoon’ is a naïve attempt to reconcile the impossible and will fail to satisfy a scrupulous, distrusting public.  Maybe he’s on a zero hours contract at The Evening Standard?  Nonetheless, BBC media editor Amol Rajan was the first to break the story and his analysis makes for insightful reading.

And finally, let’s have a superficial take: a prominent governing politician is now in charge of a media outlet whose role is to inform people of the facts and hold the powerful to account when appropriate.  The conflict of interests is astounding; and at a time when public trust in the press and politicians is at an all-time low.

Objectivity is in peril.  How will The Evening Standard cover negative stories about Osborne’s government? How will it cover the Labour London mayor?  What’s in the public interest, and what the people of London need to know about, is now decided by a governing politician whose political success relies on positive publicity - and this agenda is filling the pages of newspaper with a circulation of 1m.  Surely you can see the problem here.

Indeed, many have suggested he has taken the role as a platform for vengeance after Theresa May sacked him.  Others are already calling for Osborne to resign as an MP or for this new appointment to be investigated by parliament because it could breach ministerial code.

The upper echelons of Britain’s media and politics seem to unwittingly find new ways to feed populism like a fat pig.  The manufactured caricature by the right-wing press of educated, reasonably well-off voters concerned with the consequences of decisions based on transient and vacuous populism - the ‘liberal elite’ - has been effective in detracting from the true elite: George Osborne and his ilk.