Gang culture for toffs? understanding the right wing mind – part three

Sanna Marin, the Finnish Prime minister, who I’ve referred to previously, also has another good quote:

I have never thought about my age or gender. I think more about the motivations that brought me into politics.

Here is somebody concerned not about her interest group (or ‘gang’), but fired up about why she wants to make the societal changes that she does. This, I suggest is a major – perhaps the major, division between left and right.

The right is concerned first about power and then about their interest group (or ‘gang’) holding their place. Thus their object is ‘gang warfare’ principally in order not to upset their existing status, though I’m sure improving gang status would not go amiss. And even one nation Tories are similarly orientated – ‘You’ve never had it so good’ was a nice turn of phrase but actually a suggestion to keep things as they were – and distinctly not a radical recipe for change. Progressives are fired up by injustice and the necessary compensating changes that are needed.

I think we are getting closer in our occasional attempts towards understanding the right wing mind. People from the right are motivated by how to get power and to obtain further reward for themselves and their ilk – or gang. At the very least they want to prevent it melting away…

As John Smith said: “Tories think that the only possible thing that can motivate people is greed and if not greed, then fear.” That is no more than an expression of everyday gang culture.

Who knew that the same emotions that drive the market are the same ones that drive gang culture?

People on the left are by definition inclusive – they see the group, their ‘gang’ as the entire country – indeed often larger than that. The right see their gang as their (unique) section of it and not ever the country as a whole – for all their rhetoric. Those outside their gang are derided as not worthy and thus inadequate or even non-existant members of the country. Thus identity politics is promoted.

In all events, the ends certainly justify the means – anything to benefit their own gang including the politics of fear (see below for the evidence). This is simply gang culture for toffs.

The little piece below (also incidentally interesting in pointing out how “Brexit” was coined), contains the revealing gem of what Cameron thought (a clear oxymoron admittedly, but it displays quite overtly his flimsy reasoning and his end in view):

The extract is from the ‘Observer’ Magazine, and contains the revealing statement that “We won the Scottish referendum through fear and the economy and we will win this one the same way.”

Success was all. The truth was, even if relevant at all, entirely incidental. Cameron wanted to win for his own gang purposes and there was no consideration of the consequences or whether anyone who might think differently was even relevant.

Basically, ‘My Gang’ was all.

On this evidence the conflict between right and left is just ‘gang’ or – more old fashioned, but essentially the same – ‘tribal’ warfare, versus injustice.

No wonder progressives are at such a disadvantage.


  1. Mel -

    Yeah. In a fight between people who believe in concentrating power, versus people who believe in distributing power, who do you think will deploy more power?

  2. christine bergin -

    This strikes a responsive chord in me and ties much of what I have read and observed into a more coherent whole. It may also explain some of the attitude to the sick and disabled members of society. So easy to be contemptuous if you have no empathy.

  3. Sean Danaher -

    I think this is right, In a previous blog, Richard Murphy defined being left or right being how widely the term ‘us’ was spread. Left-wing people consider ‘us’ to be defined very broadly and right-wing people very narrowly.

    1. Peter May -

      Hadn’t seen that – great minds think alike – or fools seldom….

Comments are closed.