"Well, I
vote against an 'up yours' society"
"on learning the lessons of
responsibility"
Libby Purves: The Times (24/4/07)
Read the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article1695556.ece
1. The author argues that “France has reminded Britain how to do politics properly”.
(a) What explanations are suggested by the author for the difference in electoral turnout between Britain and France and how convincing are these?
(b) What other explanations could there be for this
difference?
2. Evaluate how successfully the author has used evidence to support her argument. Consider the relevance and adequacy of the following evidence:
(a) Her reaction to a glue sniffing 10 year old.
(b) New “crimes”, such as “Dissing the Welsh.”
(c) A rise in general stroppiness and low-level bad behaviour.
(d) The litter in her lane on any summer evening.
3. Has the author argued that the government is to blame for the general rise in incivility. If so, is she justified in doing so?
4. In discussing the rise in incivility, stroppiness and reluctance to accept personal responsibility, has the author strayed too far from the French election? What is the connection that she makes and to what extent is she justified in making the link?
5. Has the author successfully argued her way to a clear conclusion? If so, what is it?
1 (a) The “sharp, flavourful choice of ideologies” (also referred to as a “garlicky tang of difference”) between the candidates is identified as a factor. This explanation is made more convincing because it is supported by the example of the 1979 peak in British electoral turnout, when there was a sharp choice to be made.
It is also observed that people are cynical about politicians, saying that they expect them to tell lies. The author rejects this as an explanation because she suggests that the French might feel the same way.
The author seems to believe that a major difference between Britain and France is that the French have a greater sense of civic responsibility. If voting is “a responsibility” then the French discharge this in greater numbers.
(b) Many have suggested that the difference between the electoral systems in Britain and France (proportional representation v first past the post) could explain the relatively low turnout in the UK.
The social problems and unemployment in France could lead to the French taking a greater interest in politics. The author almost implies that the French turn out to vote in spite of these problems but it could be that they are voting because of them. Again a parallel could be drawn with Britain in 1979 when voting peaked as “the nation became exasperated by power cuts and endless strikes.”
2. (a) The author compares her reaction “many years ago” to what she imagines her reaction would be today. The evidence is relevant but not adequate to draw a conclusion that society has changed. The author may have changed, maybe growing more cautious as she has grown older, but this change in one person’s sense of social responsibility is not adequate to allow a conclusion to be drawn about society generally.
(b) The relevance seems to be in the author’s judgement that, “We cease to see anything as wrong unless there is both a law against it and an enforcer close at hand”. If this is the case, it could explain a proliferation in legislation. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything could be made illegal without there being some strength of opinion that considered it wrong before the government legislated.
(c) If it is true that there has been such a rise, this would be relevant evidence but the author offers very little evidence to show an increase. She does mention littering at picnic sites but she has now shown how this problem has increased.
(d) The evidence is inadequate because the author’s lane may not be representative of lanes generally and she has not shown that the problem has worsened.
3. The author says that small personal incivilities are common and that “weirdly each one is a reflection of the way our leaders behave”. She does not explicitly argue that the incivilities of government cause incivilities among the public. Her use of the word “weirdly” implies that she would not wish to argue causation from the correlation.
4. The link is that the author believes that a high electoral turnout is an indication that the public accept that running the country is “a team effort”. She bases this part of the argument on a belief that voting is a social responsibility that is, in some way, comparable to not dropping litter, not being stroppy, accepting guilt, being prepared to resign and helping 10 year old glue sniffers. The extent to which she is justified in making these links would depend on how far we accept that these are indeed symptoms of a society that has lost a sense of personal responsibility.
5. The argument relates to a speech by David Cameron, in which he argued for a “revolution in responsibility”.
If there is a conclusion in this argument it would probably be: “Mr Cameron may not have given us much policy detail yet but his instinct is good.” Thus the author largely agrees with Cameron’s speech.
The author has related some of the areas identified by David Cameron that would support the view that a “revolution in responsibility” is needed and she has added some of her own. Furthermore, she has observed that Cameron has better manners than Home Office minister Tony McNulty.