Gaslighting is spreading like wildfire

Is it worth gaslighting political leaders over cake? (Image: CraftBeer.com)

Earlier this month, political commentators were fondly remembering the events of May 1997, when Tony Blair's Labour Party won the general election in a landslide victory. Many Labour supporters used this anniversary to reflect on the 'spirit' of 25 years ago, and it's therefore about time the party replicated it today, now it's been out of power for 12 years. 

To mark a quarter-of-a-century since his party's victory, Blair appeared on camera to recall some of the policies that helped shape Britain for the better, including the introduction of the National Minimum Wage and bringing peace to Northern Ireland. He'll always claim that intervening in Afghanistan from 2001 was also a success, but it was the Iraq war that led to the downfall of his public reputation. 

Some will argue that bombing Iraq didn't hinder Blair's chances of winning the 2005 general election, however, I am convinced his credibility was tarnished the moment he resigned in 2007. With talks of a global economic crisis coming, instead of keeping then-Chancellor Gordon Brown to help tackle it as finance chief, Blair ran a mile and promoted Brown to Prime Minister during the most challenging times the UK faced for decades. Brown had effectively been thrown under the bus. Having watched the BBC documentary series of the pair earlier this year, I got the impression that no love is lost - not just because both wanted the top job in 1994, and not just because of various events throughout their time at Downing Street, but also due to the fact Blair left the moment the going was about to get tough.

The one thing I would reminisce about the Blair period was that, certainly in Britain, the culture of tacky finger pointing was limited to Fleet Street. Admittedly, only recently, I discovered the term which perfectly describes what they did, and now what many, many Twitter users are doing right now - 'gaslighting'. "Oh, not another useless buzzword that will come and go," I thought. Not quite. I cannot help but think that actually, 'gaslighting' is truly here, settled and altering society in such a way that's making me uneasy. Unlike 'woke', which I've argued before that those who use it as an insult are 'it' themselves, 'gaslighting' is much more widespread - it's a concept used by the insecure who will go through extreme lengths in order to win 'points' in a given argument, yet are seeing things in black and white.

Let's start with defining 'gaslighting'; as quoted on NBC, it is "to refer to a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else to question their own reality, memory or perceptions". It's commonly used by psychologists to describe someone in a domestic abuse situation, but increasingly, we're often seeing this in the media and in politics. We saw it during the Covid-19 pandemic (which is still on-going) where, for example, those against face-masks felt as though they 'violated our personal freedoms', and that's exactly what Western governments had planned all along. Many, sadly, still believe this today, and aren't looking at the bigger picture of why they're used in certain places and at certain periods.

I yearn for the days where incidents are no longer considered black and white. Everything happens for multiple reasons, and it's therefore vital that everyone has the full picture of contentious issues, then ask questions before reaching a measured judgement. It's developing a curiosity while at the same time being in a position to come up with an argument that sees things from various corners. Life's too short to get cynical about people and situations which we have little or no involvement with.

The most recent example of 'gaslighting' is around the behaviours of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and current Labour leader Keir Starmer during the pandemic. Johnson was recently issued with a £50 fixed fine for breaking Covid rules when he was 'ambushed by cake' in June 2020. Starmer is under significant pressure over eating curry and drinking beer while campaigning in April 2021, so much so, that in fact this article could be outdated in days if he was issued with a fine and tendered his resignation over this. It is so easy to jump on a bandwagon and say that either are guilty. Using the black and white arguments, both were mingling with others - or colleagues - during times where it was against the rules to mingle with people away from their bubbles. Yet, let's look at the wider picture.

Johnson almost two years ago, was working in his office until members of Downing Street staff walked in with cake and sang Happy Birthday to him. They hanged around for a number of minutes and then went away. Naturally, the Prime Minister could have locked his office from the beginning or told his colleagues, "Thanks for singing, but now go away because you're breaking the rules." Very few people would have done that, lockdown or no lockdown. Is it an offence? I personally wouldn't say so. Neither was it right to fine those, say, walking in a park. There was no joint, agreed consensus for police forces to decide what was 'acceptable' or not. The Prime Minister should have thought of that, perhaps around the time he was 'ambushed by cake'. 

Equally, Starmer shouldn't be punished by Durham Police. He travelled north and actively took part in campaigning for a by-election. By the end of that day, he and his teams ordered a takeaway at a hall. This was planned from the get-go. Starmer argues he was on a break, which is a reasonable response. You can have a break with colleagues at the end of a shift. Does it matter what colleagues were talking about while munching on a bhaji? They had been with each other for much of the day, and were a working bubble during that process. Those who couldn't work from home could do that.

The main difference between the two cases, a significant turning point in this comparison, is that Johnson initially denied any gatherings or parties had taken place at Downing Street during lockdowns, regardless of his presence. The fact that he has misled Parliament over at least one event, is why the calls for him to resign have greater justification than those which suggests that Starmer should go. Nowadays, it doesn't take much for someone to cry 'resign, now'. 

Whether Johnson or Starmer followed the 'spirit' of lockdown rules is a separate debate for another time. Most of us did. We were stuck at our homes, many of us worked such long hours without a break and without face-to-face socialising. We compromised so much. We almost felt guilty of laughing during times of uncertainty and turmoil. Very few of us liked following the rules; being separated from friends and family was gut-wrenching. And we should be proud of our efforts in weakening Covid-19. But as a result of these sacrifices, is it necessary to spread hatred and judgement on those who also followed the rules but did it while eating curry? Downing Street and Labour staff, at those moments, couldn't work from home as their jobs required to take them elsewhere. 

The 'gaslighting' needs to stop. It is spreading like wildfire when actually, if either should resign, it isn't for cake or beer. What happened to forensic analysis without bias or agenda? What happened to actually waiting for that 'infamous' Sue Gray report? Do we really expect a comprehensive report to be written and published overnight? No doubt, it'd be discredited by those who think they know better anyway. So let's just sit down, relax a little and not jump to conclusions before any conclusion is set in stone.