Until we supress political tribalism, we will continue to callously neglect the needs of the poor and vulnerable

When anything takes precedence over looking after the basic needs of people, we must ask questions of ourselves and our priorities. Individuals are the whirring cogs of society, living lives increasingly dominated by work. Without choice, we buy into this life on the basis that we all get sufficient returns to feed our families, enjoy our free time and find value in our time. Yet when a 20 year-old footballer is doing more to combat child hunger than those in power, you have to wonder whether everyone gets a fair deal. Forget politics or economics for a second, society has sold its soul to the devil.

The "devil", in this case, is a complex web of bankers, politicians, oligarchs, social media giants and failing businessmen-turned-Presidents who have differences in every department but one - their greed. And "sold" is an apt metaphor, given that it is economically in which they have benefitted most. In the UK in 2018, the richest 10% held 45% of the country's wealth, whilst the poorest 10% held just 2% between them, and funnily enough, hold debt worth treble their earnings. 

The wealth disparity, only exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, has been evident for years. In turn, it has affected the education, health, and wellbeing of millions. But we seem more insistent on political rhetoric and tribalism than addressing the key problems of our society and that is something that I am becoming more and more incandescent about.

Take the overarching issues in the UK in 2020, Brexit and  COVID-19, as examples. The former, inherently political in its nature is the embodiment of political partisanship. Political interactions between those supporting Remain or Leave have become divisive, only ignited by social media usage. There seems an insistence on disengaging with those of different opinion, so much so that there will be no cohesive solution.

I have written about it before, but aren't we all best off putting aside these differences and working for a solution, in this case a deal, that will benefit us all? There are jobs, livelihoods and ultimately lives at stake. Instead, many live in fear of grim realities of Brexit, and others revel in the promised glories of it. That said, it would all be in vain as we have a government who would be unable to implement any change we would agree on. And it is plainly obvious that they will only act to benefit themselves and further the inequality I mentioned before. 

The lack of unity, I suppose, is politics. People's differences in opinion are based upon their preferences and what they see as most important. There may always be disagreement - but I would like to see that become less tribal with people more open to debate and engagement with others. That requires a collective change though, which may be a fantasy.

Political conflict bears its teeth further with science and the pandemic. Division amongst these times of uncertainty is understandable, especially in a scenario by which there is no real gain.  

I understand the clamour for avoiding another imposition of lockdown measures, and moreover, I sympathise with the motive behind those views. It is tough to shackle the bounds of our human nature, which inherently wants us to spread our wings, explore the world, meet different people, the list goes on. The economy, which I stressed the value of before, would suffer once more. This time the catastrophe would be more severe, and further put the lives of millions into upheaval.

At the same time, continuing with our lives would put so many people at risk. An extra 85,000 would be projected to fall victim to COVID-19, whilst hundreds of thousands more would surely suffer longer-term complications that may plague them in the future. 

Yet the decision has been portrayed as "saving deaths through lockdown vs saving economy". But the longer there is inaction, the longer need for a lockdown and the longer economic pain that will ensue as a result. So basically, inaction leads to the worst of both worlds.

Political tribalism in this regard is stopping action, and ultimately costing lives. Look at the issues in Greater Manchester, with the Mayor Andy Burnham quite understandably trying to avoid the harshest lockdown measures without financial support. But if that financial support doesn't come, the economic devastation will only be worse - because the lockdown will have to last longer. Surely both sides need to compromise?

In essence, the government won't U-turn again because of the negative coverage it would give them, and you can bet your house financial support wouldn't be an issue if it was an area closer to their hearts. Equally, I would imagine there is an opportunity for Burnham to act brash about this to gain popularity and spite the government somewhat. 

In light of the inaction and inability of this quite frankly clueless government, a further nationwide lockdown is essential. Exacerbated by the short-sightedness of previous leaders before them, the Johnson-led regime dawdled on implementing measures back in March, supported their chief advisor breaking the rules in May, then spent August telling people to go out and spend their money - only to blame them for a spike in cases. And that's without mentioning the shambolic testing system. Am I surprised they aren't bothered about reversing inequality of the poorest? 

Immediate financial support is imperative to help those directly impacted by lockdown, that I cannot deny. But the argument for "saving the economy" is weak and ignores the real problem.

Instead of focusing on how we all need to be working, can we look to the top 1% and tax them properly? Will we introduce a universal basic income to give people security and freedom to work jobs they better enjoy? Will we try to reduce gender and racial inequality in the workplace, so that opportunities for women and BAME communities better reflect their value to society?

Big problems need big solutions, not stop-gap focuses like "rebuilding the economy" through returning to public service cuts, marginalising the poorest and becoming more laissez-faire. The post-war introduction of the NHS was radical but is now a national treasure. Perhaps we can fund it more now.

I was sparked into writing this by reading a horrifying story of a recently unemployed mother of a 3 year-old who committed suicide because her Universal Credit payments would take 6 weeks to come through and she had no ability to provide food for her child. The comments replying to the tweet tell their own story, I'll leave that up to you to read because they are horrifying and exactly the behaviour I think we should eschew from engaging in. 

From Westminster to Manchester, political tribalism plagues this country. Whilst we have so many people needing urgent help, we would do well to put our differences aside and create a society where struggling individuals are no longer cruelly ignored in favour of the "devil".