A patronising analysis of the masses, signed The Economist

I wrote back in October about how it was “refreshing to see a publication that could easily fall into the conservative, dry bracket become thought-provoking, open-minded, and bold” and noted, surprised, that perhaps I was part of the pool of potential new readers that The Economist had identified. I have since read some of their articles and enjoyed them.

Yesterday, however, I was reminded of the side of The Economist that made me a sceptic in the first place, as I came across the article The anti-cuts march: Ed Miliband’s bad timing.

I expected an anti-Labour view point, but I didn’t quite expect what I was about to get: a twisted take on society, completely soaked in neo-liberal bias.

The first paragraph, where the writer reasoned around Saturday’s anti-cuts demonstration and Hyde Park event with the conclusion that “viewers who worry that the current Labour leadership is beholden to the unions and public-sector vested interests will hardly be changing their minds,” was enough to send alarm bells ringing. Who are these worried viewers? Right-wing sympathisers who are sick of Cameron’s bullshit and are hoping that Labour will turn into an equally conservative alternative? When did Labour holding hands with the unions and the public sector become a bad, even surprising, thing?

Anyway, at this stage I felt more confused than I felt angry, but that was about to change. The writer went on to not only criticise Miliband, who spoke in Hyde Park, for “appealing to people who are already certain to vote Labour” (does he suggest that party politics should be populist and policies adapted to suit any group of voters that appears to be momentarily undecided?), but also to blame him for exclaiming that “David Cameron, this is the big society!” despite knowing that surely somewhere amongst the hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators there would be a violent few, whom journalists would use to make his speech appear embarrassing. The Tories “must not be able to believe their luck,” The Economist explained.

And then it got worse: it’s not just Miliband who’s made a fool of himself, but also the “decent and good-natured majority” of those opposed to the cuts, since they are “wilfully oblivious to the need for any spending cuts at all”.

The condecending tone with which The Economist analyses huge parts of the working and middle classes is just incredible. But in addition to being patronised here, I think those who feel betrayed by the current coalition are also being hugely underestimated.

The Economist writer refers to Labour as “a party that is already seen by voters as too left-wing,” but I think he’s jumping to conclusions. I think it’s possible that the masses have had enough, that this time there’s a real class war going on, and that a true left-wing alternative is the only thing left for the average voter to believe in – finally.

The fact that you have to wear a balaclava and smash windows to get The Economist journalists to even reflect on what’s happening out there amongst ordinary people is a whole different debate. One which reminds me why The Economist will never be my main source of news.

For another controversial, thought-provoking read about why we’re all in this together, peaceful and violent alike, check out this Guardian article by Leah Borromeo.