In Defence of Politics’ ‘Album Culture’

An article recently published in the Financial Times (Shrimsley, 2023) decries what its author, the paper’s chief political editor, has coined an ‘album culture’ in politics. Robert Shrimsley’s thesis is that activists and politicians are being increasingly forced into accepting every policy or position of their movement, which inherently heavily involves the silencing of sceptics within political movements. This argument is one that has become more relevant in the weeks since the article’s publication, in light of the rebellion of over a quarter of the Parliamentary Labour Party over the party leadership’s decision not to support an amendment to the King’s Speech calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict. The widespread support for a ceasefire, and sympathy for the citizens of Gaza amongst the left has undeniably led to an increase in condemnation towards those who do not support a ceasefire. However,to describe this as an ‘album culture’ as Shrimsley does and to suggest that the described concept is wholly negative and unjustified, is flawed. 

The political views of individuals are based on their ethical beliefs, in combination with their world-view. A healthy, pluralistic, democracy allows for a range of viewpoints. Therefore, whilst it is fair to criticise the view that a participant in a movement need agree with everything the movement is in favour of, the article fails to acknowledge that it is equally fair to criticise the view that people should not be able to disagree vocally with views of those belonging to the same wider movement as them. The democratic freedom to express our ethical and political beliefs cuts both ways. 

Another issue with the argument presented in the article is that it ignores the way in which our representative democracy works. When we elect individual members of parliament, as well as our government, we are consenting to them governing on our behalf. Representatives have to make decisions on a variety of issues, and so it is important that voters elect those with similar attitudes and political outlooks to them, not just candidates who support a few policies they agree with. Though it is of course important that our politicians are free to express a variety of opinions, it should be expected that each policy they support will lose them the backing of at least a few voters. If an issue is important to someone, it is unreasonable to expect them to vote for a representative who will go directly against their view, even if they agree on most things. 

Shrimsley does correctly point out a distressing hypocrisy regarding which specific issues are focused on (in particular by left wing activists), pointing out the lack of rallies for Syrians in contrast to the marches and vigils for Palestinians in comparable situations. Similar could be said for many of those on the right, who are, for example, very selective in which forms of free speech that they will support. This criticism is valid. It appears that activists do not care so much about the causes they purport to support. Instead, they are joining whichever side of an argument seems to correspond with their political leaning, irrespective of whether they actually care about it. It is, however, possible to attribute this to a different cause, the media. Between the partisan nature of most traditional media sources, and the algorithmically derived echo chambers of social media, it is unsurprising that most people are only aware of issues that side with the political cleavage they are aligned to.

In regards to the case of the proposed ceasefire in Gaza, it is telling that the Labour MPs who rebelled against the whip came from all wings of the party. The idea then, that MPs who are typically allies of Starmer who voted against the party whip, have bought in too much to political ‘album culture’ is clearly false. They are able to disagree with one track, to use Shrimsley’s analogy, in an album they otherwise completely support. 

Whilst Shrimsley’s article raises some interesting and concerning points, especially regarding the hypocrisy of many activists, his argument is flawed. Politics’ ‘album culture’, then, is both exaggerated, and a natural consequence of the exercise of free speech. 

Bibliography:

Shrimsley, R. (2023) The perils of an unquestioning ‘album culture’ in politics, Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/c60a31f1-aad0-4d89-bdd5-81bcfcc0be8a (Accessed: 17 November 2023).