The longer a debate continues, the greater the likelihood is that the side with actual power will accuse the side with none, of being part of the 'elite'
Goodwin's own endless "prolier than thou" protestations can't hide the fact that, as you suggest, he himself is a fully paid-up (an indeed extremely well paid) member of the real elites that govern this country (in his case the Murdoch and Rothermere press, GB News, Legatum and Policy Exchange). But he's also employed by an institution - the University of Kent - which embodies, or is at least supposed to embody, all the liberal values which he so despises. The same institution also harbours Frank Furedi who, as Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar pointed out in a recent Byline Times, is now running a "think tank" promoting the ideas of Viktor Orban. It goes without saying that if the university was employing people as far to the left as these people are to the right, the Sun, Mail, Express and Telegraph would be in daily uproar - but leaving that aside, one does wonder what its position is on employees who publicly attack the very values on which universities are supposed to be founded. Bringing the institution into disrepute is a sackable offence in a university, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that Goodwin is doing just that. But perhaps I'm just being old-fashioned, and in the modern university, raising its public profile is all that matters - no matter by what means and to what ends.
I’m bemused by The Sun article since Vorderman and Lineker are not mentioned in his book and Campbell only gets a single passing mention. I can only assume the subbies gussied it up to suit their audience. I recall writing a piece for The Economist years ago which, when finally published had been virtually rewritten so it doesn’t surprise but even so, this seems extreme. As an aside, the book makes arguments that helped me make sense of the Brexit vote. I’m sure it’s not the complete picture but a disaffected majority who voted against makes sense as contextualised by Goodwin. It’s what scares the bejesus out of Labour planners, almost as much as the ‘don’t knows’ that Goodwin routinely finds and which is reflected among past hard core Labour voters I come across. Long story short, IMO it’s dangerous to wholly dismiss a person simply because their political leanings are adrift from one’s own. For me, the bigger issue is the extent to which intolerance of other positions at both ends of the political spectrum is making our political discourse almost impossible to navigate without the danger of ridicule or ‘cancelling.’
Goodwin's own endless "prolier than thou" protestations can't hide the fact that, as you suggest, he himself is a fully paid-up (an indeed extremely well paid) member of the real elites that govern this country (in his case the Murdoch and Rothermere press, GB News, Legatum and Policy Exchange). But he's also employed by an institution - the University of Kent - which embodies, or is at least supposed to embody, all the liberal values which he so despises. The same institution also harbours Frank Furedi who, as Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar pointed out in a recent Byline Times, is now running a "think tank" promoting the ideas of Viktor Orban. It goes without saying that if the university was employing people as far to the left as these people are to the right, the Sun, Mail, Express and Telegraph would be in daily uproar - but leaving that aside, one does wonder what its position is on employees who publicly attack the very values on which universities are supposed to be founded. Bringing the institution into disrepute is a sackable offence in a university, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that Goodwin is doing just that. But perhaps I'm just being old-fashioned, and in the modern university, raising its public profile is all that matters - no matter by what means and to what ends.
I’m bemused by The Sun article since Vorderman and Lineker are not mentioned in his book and Campbell only gets a single passing mention. I can only assume the subbies gussied it up to suit their audience. I recall writing a piece for The Economist years ago which, when finally published had been virtually rewritten so it doesn’t surprise but even so, this seems extreme. As an aside, the book makes arguments that helped me make sense of the Brexit vote. I’m sure it’s not the complete picture but a disaffected majority who voted against makes sense as contextualised by Goodwin. It’s what scares the bejesus out of Labour planners, almost as much as the ‘don’t knows’ that Goodwin routinely finds and which is reflected among past hard core Labour voters I come across. Long story short, IMO it’s dangerous to wholly dismiss a person simply because their political leanings are adrift from one’s own. For me, the bigger issue is the extent to which intolerance of other positions at both ends of the political spectrum is making our political discourse almost impossible to navigate without the danger of ridicule or ‘cancelling.’