Are we living in a world of Post-Truth Politics?

Are we living in a world of post-truth politics? 

Tump, Brexit, Grammar schools: there is plenty of ammunition for those who claim that we are living in world of Post-truth politics, but what exactly is post truth politics and we, in fact, destined for a world dominated by just that?  

350 million pounds a week to our NHS, if you’re not immediately familiar with this figure it is the figure that the official leave campaign emblazoned across their bus, their slogans and repeated in every interview. We knew then that this was a false, unrealistic and completely misleading claim, and know even Farage himself has distanced himself from it, agreeing that it was misleading. Yet 52% of the country voted for an option which was dominated by what are now widely  accepted to be false statistics. Many would argue that this exemplifies how facts and statistics have become irrelevant to the success of politics, instead being dominated by fear and lies. It certainly does seem to get support, but with the Brexit cases it is hard to attribute the success of the campaign to the ‘post-truths’, as they have euphemistically become known, from the other factors of success, such as the disenfranchisement of the public. 

It is not a new thing that politicians lie by any means. Politicians have ranked high for many years in what the public perceive to be the world’s most untrustworthy professions. There is a difference between evidence free politics and post-truth politics.  Politicians previously have always used the lack of the truth as an instrument for a goal, no better example can be found than the Badger Cull or Grammar Schools - both of which have been put forward despite resounding evidence. Post truth Politics is different, for here the truth becomes an irrelevant aside, something that is not even considered. This is where the problem lies. 

Post-truth politics currently has two topical examples that help to suggest its origins and its fuel.  One is Brexit, the other is Trump and both share certain features, aside from a polarising and provocative leader. Those voting for the campaigns are generally working class, disenfranchised people who can easily relate to a simple narrative. This disenfranchisement is the product of decades of marginalisation, and this stirs an anger that post-truth politics appeals to. Post truth politics is a depressing situation, but one that a full knowledge of facts, and a proactive approach to political interest can help to remedy. Trump’s refugee problem poster is a horrific demonstration of what can happen when post-truth politics is pushed to the limit. It is dangerous and can legitimise racism and intolerance. 

Brexit, a note from a young remainer.

So we are, as of yesterday, a nation who decided to leave the EU. 51.9% of people have voted to leave the European Union, something that many people -myself included - thought would never happen.

And yet I use the word nation in the loosest possible way, for, in my mind, we are no longer a nation. With such deep rooted, public divides I felt that the nation of Britain that I woke up to on the 24th of June was a world away from the one I had left the day before. Scotland, in which every single local authority area voted to remain, now has a clear mandate to leave the UK, with renewed support from English remainers. But even more surprising is the extent of the calls for London - another place with resounding remain votes - to be independent from the UK, and a part of Europe. Whilst this many seem a ludicrous suggestion it only serves to highlight quite how divisive the referendum has been.

The majority of Brexit votes have not been a simple vote for the facts of Britain leaving the EU. The plethora of misinformation, apathy and idiocy amongst certain groups of Brexiters, pushed by the British media, has driven the votes. Not only this but it has also been against the establishment, against the Westminster Cartel, though I would argue that those voting leave are just as much members of the political and socioeconomic elite as those voting remain.
And yet now, one day after the result was announced, the reality of this misinformation starts to shine through.
Immigration was a topic that inspired huge interest and anger, often to a level that frustrated many, yet Tory MEP Daniel Manin has already appeared on 'Newsnight' and said that "No one has ever suggested there is going to be no immigration". This represents the epitome of the widespread misleading of the public on the real issues of the referendum.
But sadly this is not the only such example. Since the referendum Nigel Farage appeared on 'This Morning" claiming that it was a 'mistake' to claim that there would be £350m/ week for the NHS, a figure emblazoned on the side of the 'Vote Leave' battle bus. In the economy too, the promise of a nation of wealth outside the EU has already been made obsolete. In just 12 hours £200billion was wiped off the stock markets due to Brexit, more than the UK has ever contributed to the EU. Now, $2 trillion has been wiped from global stock markets. Moreover, credible rumours suggest that major City banks are planning to relocate to continental locations such as Frankfurt.

I say this only to illustrate the enormity of the mistake. But also to try to explain why I feel betrayed. I had no vote in this. No 16 year old did, yet the over 50s have sealed our fate through false knowledge and ill-vented anger. But what can we do?

With no vote and few ways to make ourselves heard there seems little hope. A quick glance at the sea of frustrated, upset and desperate Facebook posts would only confirm this.

Currently, I think few of my age are optimistic about the country's future.

Refugees: an Obvious Argument

Refugees: should we be taking them; a division in UK politics. 

The current influx of migrants into the European Union is fuelled by a dire humanitarian crisis in Syria, as well as political instability in northern Africa. Over 4 million refugees have already fled Syria, a country gripped by a multifaceted war that has killed over 250 000 people in its four year and a half year duration. 

Background

The war in Syria was triggered by pro-democracy protests against President Assad’s totalitarian rule erupting in 2011, fuelled by the Arab Spring. After government forces opened fire on the predominantly peaceful protests hundreds of thousands of Syrians entered into the conflict, expanding well beyond the capital of Damascus. The opposition to the state became armed and this was the beginning of a long, dangerous war. But this is not a war of merely a pro democracy majority against a sectarian state, it is far more nuanced than that, something that has made western intervention or assistance so much more difficult. The war against Assad has been marred by the rise of IS militants, also fighting against his government, meaning that the resistance is no longer as simple as it was at first. The boundaries between pro democracy rebels and those who want revolution for other means is furthered by a UN investigation that found that war crimes had been committed on both sides of the civil war. 

Refugees

For the civilians of Syria, be they on one or another side, whether they were prosperous or not before the war, what counts is their escape from the indiscriminate fighting. Their towns and cities have been destroyed around them, jobs have gone and little infrastructure remains. Their priority, as anyone’s would be, is saving their lives and the lives of their surviving relatives. This means moving. Earlier in the war people remained in Syria but as the war moved on the fighting caught up with them and forced out of the country. 

Most of these refugees have crossed the borders into neighbouring Middle Eastern countries. Namely Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey which between them have taken over 3 500 000 refugees. Additionally of these refugees have moved on from Turkey into the European Union by whatever route that they can.

This is wha has brought the Syrian war not just up to Europe’s doorstep but over the threshold. The Syrian refugees have moved from being a foreign affairs problem to a home affairs problem. One by one European countries have had to decide what part they are going to play in response to this problem unprecedented in modern times. 

Britain’s Role

David Cameron has said that Britain will take 20 000 refugees by 2020, in other words 4 000 a year. Germany, on the other hand, has said that it can take up to half a million migrants a year. This announcement by the Prime Minister has been widely criticised as being too small by Judges across England, in addition to senior figures in the church of England and other prominent figures. Is this a sufficient response by the UK? 4 000 people is significantly less than a large cruise liner.