Latest news with #NeilMackay
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Find all articles on the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election
Initially, this looked like a two-way contest between SNP and Labour, but Reform UK have thrown everything at winnng over disaffected voters. The outcome could reshape Scotland's political map and offer clues about how the parties will fare at next year's Holyrood election. On this page, you'll find all of The Herald's in-depth reporting, interviews, analysis and opinion on the Hamilton by-election, including candidate profiles, campaign developments, and what's being said on the doorstep. We'll update this hub throughout the campaign — and through the night as the results come in. Explainer: Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election Why voters in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse are heading to the polls — and why this by-election could send shockwaves through Scottish politics. Hamilton by-election preview: candidates set out their stalls Profiles and strategies from the Hamilton by-election front-runners, plus insight on the seat's political history and campaign dynamics. Reform support in Hamilton should worry other parties On the streets of Hamilton: voters voice frustration — and many say they are turning to Reform UK. SNP will be the winner as Reform outflanks Labour from the left Neil Mackay on Labour's identity crisis — and how Farage is stealing its clothes while the SNP reaps the rewards. Reform can 'win Hamilton by-election and take power' in HolyroodRichard Tice tells The Herald why Reform UK believes it can win in Hamilton — and reshape Scottish politics from Holyrood to Westminster. Reform support in Hamilton should worry other parties On the streets of Hamilton: voters voice frustration — and many say they are turning to Reform UK. SNP will be the winner as Reform outflanks Labour from the left Neil Mackay on Labour's identity crisis — and how Farage is stealing its clothes while the SNP reaps the rewards. Tory candidate defends Orange Order and Apprentice Boys links "We are law-abiding organisations. We pledge allegiance to His Majesty the King. And, you know, we are not divisive at all, and people have their right to their own religion.' Farage defends Reform UK by-election ad branded racist Nigel Farage has accused Anas Sarwar of 'introducing sectarianism into Scottish politics.' Labour by-election candidate denies he has hindered campaign Scottish Labour's by-election candidate has rubbished claims he has a 'low profile.' Anas Sarwar challenges Nigel Farage to debate in Hamilton The Scottish Labour leader said the Brexiteer was a 'pathetic, poisonous, little man'.
The Herald Scotland
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Look after Scotland first with new winter fuel payment
Discussion so far appears to revolve around a form of 'means testing'. That is one approach. However, it is my view that UK governments, of whatever political hue, cannot bring themselves to look at the needs of the population. Is it cooler in Shetland 12 months per year compared to the South of England? Do homes located in the Highlands require more heat and light during the winter months? I would recommend setting a base level around the Liverpool area and applying a graduated reduced heating allowance to the regions to the south of that line and a graduated increase to the north. It is surely not beyond the wit of the Exchequer to make use of postcode data and differentiate the parameters to be used to determine a 'levelling up' approach to an individual's needs. Governments appear to be able to determine taxation levels and varying service charges for gas and electricity on a geographical basis. I would term this approach as logical. But would it be viewed as an acceptable political approach? I doubt it in London but I would urge all Scottish MPs to get behind my motion and look after the Scottish population. Stewart Lightbody, Troon. Disordered evidence Neil Mackay's article on the increasingly intemperate language used in what he terms "disordered discourse" ("Clarkson shows he knows diddly squat about Scotland", The Herald, May 22) was apposite at a time when there is repeated evidence of this in any discussion of Scottish politics, whether it be in The Herald or elsewhere. The Letters Pages are a prime example of this with derogatory references to SNP supporters as "sheep-like supporters" who "parrot the same lines". But the SNP that won 56 seats in the 2015 General Election only won nine last year. So by definition their support can hardly be described as "sheep-like". In reality such remarks are not discourse but simply mendacity for mendacity's sake. A further example is the £650 million shortfall faced by local councils as highlighted by the Accounts Commission. The Commission blames this on "soaring inflation" plus "increased costs and demands". These are all outwith the ability of the Scottish Government to control. Yet there is a predictable knee-jerk response from opposition politicians with Labour's spokesperson saying this is a direct consequence of 'SNP incompetence and cuts'. This is despite the Accounts Commission itself saying that 'not all cost increases faced by councils can be met by government funding' and that £350 million of additional costs faced by councils can be attributed to the National Insurance increases implemented by the current Labour Government at Westminster. Read more letters The presentation of facts doesn't deter those with a malign view of their opponents from constantly framing events through the prism of their own bias. For example, the failure to build two ferries on time is once again blamed on "SNP incompetence". But Scottish Government ministers had no oversight role in the actual build process. They are not a party to the contract and as such cannot direct or influence events on the ground. Nevertheless that does not stop them from being blamed for the mistakes made by those who had that responsibility. Predictably rival parties maintain that if they were in power none of this would have happened. And of course no evidence to validate this assertion is ever offered up. The civil servants, workers and management responsible for the ferries debacle – either in whole or in part – will invariably remain in place along with the usual bland assurances that "lessons will be learnt". But they never are. For instance we now learn that the same mistakes made on the Glen Sannox were made on the Glen Rosa without anybody apparently noticing. This is despite repeated reassurances given to ministers and to various Holyrood committees by Ferguson's management that the monitoring of procedures had been tightened up. It is therefore not so much a case of disordered discourse but more one of disordered evidence. Robert Menzies, Falkirk. CalMac users satisfied In response to Peter Wright (Letters, May 23): there is nothing 'whitabootery' about citing UK cost over-runs when my taxes (and those of everyone else in Scotland) are used to pay for them. Anyone can check on the status of Isle of Wight ferries and they will find BBC and local/national newspaper reports on frequent cancellations, 'more misery', 'held to ransom [a £440 return ticket]', a 'scandalous' ferry system – often due to maintenance failures and breakdown (sound familiar?). New Tory MP Joe Robertson (after 14 years of Tory rule), asked the Labour Government to 'protect Isle of Wight passengers from excessive ferry prices... bad and unreliable service for a vital transport link from unregulated ferry companies'. Sir Keir Starmer concurred at PMQs with this MP, that islanders were reliant on foreign-owned, debt-laden, unregulated ferry companies for essential travel. As for consulting local residents of the Hebridean islands, luckily I do not have to. A six-month survey of 15,000 ferry users (published January 2025) found an average satisfaction rate of 84%, two per cent up on the previous summer. If you don't like or trust this, you can ask CalMac for details of who carried out the survey. Being properly regulated, it cannot refuse to answer. It would be nice in Scotland if ferries, knife crime, education, policing numbers, NHS waiting lists et al could all be reported in our media normally, without hyperbole, and in context. GR Weir, Ochiltree. Is castration a viable course? How should we view Labour Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood's consideration of chemical castration for sex offenders ("Chemical castration of sex offenders to be piloted in 20 prisons, says Mahmood", heraldscotland, May 22)? It follows a review led by a former justice secretary, David Gauke, which the Scottish Government is reported to be considering. Throughout society there seems to have been an explosion of abhorrent offences involving grooming gangs, sexual abuse of children and a rise in rape statistics. Steps both short-term and long-term will have to be taken to stem the flood of such obnoxious crimes. Long-term projects in this direction will take years to come to fruition while short-term measures could have a sharp-shock deterrent effect upon those who wish to indulge their unsavoury sexual appetites upon unwilling victims. Castration, chemical or surgical, could put the frighteners on those who harbour insalubrious designs upon their targets. However, the introduction of castration for sex offenders could mean that a reintroduction of the death penalty might have to be considered, if those who cannot or are unwilling to control their unhealthy sexual impulses resort to the murder of their victims to avoid the unpleasantness of lifelong castration and so hope to escape detection.. What penalty would await those women who are complicit in helping those who indulge their sexual fantasies with unwilling victims or themselves participate actively in such sexual abuse? Then there are women who lure underage youngsters into having sex with them, both male and female. They merit a condign penalty for ruining young lives. In this age of equality of the sexes, what punishment would Shabana Mahmood propose for those offenders? This is a can of worms which deserves to be explored and investigated. Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs. UK Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has proposed a trial of chemical castration of sex offenders (Image: PA) Trump right to cut PBS funding AJ Clarence (Letters, May 22) appears to be suffering from what our friends across the pond currently describe as "Trump Derangement Syndrome" – in that, whatever happens, or indeed is claimed by social media to have happened, it is his fault. In a similar fashion, more locally, the equally deranged SNP blames Westminster for anything negative. Your correspondent is upset that Donald Trump has "defunded Sesame Street". In fact what has happened is that Warner Bros – which provided much of the programme's funding – was not renewing its deal with PBS and has now stopped its support. In addition, quite rightly, Mr Trump has reduced the state funding provided to PBS on the grounds that while it is meant to be apolitical, it clearly is not. In a similar way, many here firmly believe that the BBC should be defunded due to its endless left-leaning bias in all matters political – hence the increasing numbers refusing to pay their TV licences. Why should taxpayers fund media outlets to produce what is effectively political propaganda? Regarding AJ Clarence's criticism of Mr Trump on Israel: the President has enabled ceasefire negotiations and talks between Israel and the Hamas terrorists, while his predecessor Joe Biden sat on Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet. Derangement syndrome fully engaged. Steph Johnson, Glasgow. Does Hamas want peace? Your Letters Pages today (May 23) make interesting reading with regards to the situation in Gaza. Little or nothing is made of the impact of the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas but a lot is made of the consequences for Gaza. I have criticised the Labour Government for not thinking ahead but it looks suspiciously like Hamas did and the current situation is exactly what it wants. Peace can never be achieved by starting hostilities with an utterly atrocious massacre. Does Hamas really want peace? Highly unlikely, so you have to ask the question about what is the end game and it must be a Hamas victory which equates to the destruction of the state of Israel. Shockingly perhaps Benjamin Netanyahu is right when he this week equated "Free Palestine" with "Heil Hitler" for neo-Nazis. Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Green cloud cuckoo land The SNP's Net Zero Secretary Gillian Martin has said that people living in cities should consider getting rid of their cars to help tackle climate change. Ms Martin also supports the expansion of heat pumps. She can afford an expensive EV since she gets a salary of £116,125 from the Scottish taxpayer. She might not know that heat pumps are at least four times more expensive than gas boilers and are less efficient and that Scotland only has 0.1 per cent of global emissions. She and too many other politicians live in a green cloud cuckoo land where they chant "Where Scotland leads others will follow". They should all be put back into their green boxes and the lids closed. Clark Cross, Linlithgow. Sum amusement Willie Towers' letter (May 21) reminded me of a maths teacher of mine who would chalk a lengthy maths solution on the board then say: "Right, look at the board while I run through it." We never did have the pleasure of seeing him achieve this feat. More recently, though still some time ago, a teaching colleague in the maths department would similarly elaborate a maths problem on the board then ask the class "Are you with me?" to be met with a chorus of "No, we're with the Woolwich!". Readers of a certain age will remember the TV advert. Bob Byiers, Bearsden.
The Herald Scotland
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Labour's taste for biological extremism is both creepy and dangerous
The past should be learned from, and viewed as we view our youth: full of mistakes we won't repeat. The future should be approached like a tightrope walker: slowly inching forward in case haste tips us to our death. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of technology and science. In years gone by, should we not have been much more cautious in what we did with the power of the atom? Would we still give free rein to the internet as we did in the 1990s? Would we claim today that social media is the saviour of democracy as we did in the 2010s? If caution should have been engaged then, should caution not be engaged now? The notion that technology always means progress is a mere lie. We should shiver at the Labour government's embrace of biology as a means not only to deal with seemingly intractable problems, but as a way of refashioning humanity in all its ugly reality. Labour intends to use chemical castration on sexual offenders. Keir Starmer's government has already said it wants to use 'fat jabs' to get unemployed people into work. This biological extremism is deeply troubling. After nearly 35 years as a reporter covering violent crime – including violent sexual crime against women and children – giving consideration to what happens to sexual offenders, rapists and paedophiles is quite a reach for me. I confess that the only time murder crossed my mind was in the company of a paedophile. I was visiting a Scottish jail many years ago to report on conditions for prisoners. Read more from Neil Mackay: What you might call 'ordinary decent criminals' – your average thieves – were being kept in rather squalid surroundings, with the grim Victorian tradition of slopping out still routine. On a segregated wing, however, I met sex offenders living in much better conditions, with toilets and TVs. I am not opposed to prisoners having access to television or bathrooms, but I wasn't impressed by the worst offenders receiving the best treatment. I was taken into a cell to see the facilities. Inside was a sex offender. I asked the prisoner what crime he had committed. He started to claim that he'd been 'led astray' by his victim. Before he could continue, the prison officer stopped him and said, 'Don't lie to the journalist, you were convicted of raping a four-year-old girl'. I called the interview to a halt. I felt a wave of rage come over me so intense that I could imagine smashing the paedophile's face off his sink. Back on the wing, I told the prison officer how I felt. He said, 'How do you think I feel every day of my life?' However, despite the visceral disgust I feel, chemical castration seems to open the door to some dreadful dystopia. Initially, it will be voluntary down south, but Labour is already suggesting it becomes compulsory. We've just seen a man released after serving 38 years for a crime he didn't commit. This is a government moving in a very creepy direction that's both frighteningly sci-fi, yet thoroughly medieval. I oppose capital punishment as I believe the human body to be inviolable. The state must not sink to the depths of the criminal. We must not murder the murderer. The sex offender is jailed because he has violated another person's body. Nobody has the right to take my life but myself. We cannot medicalise our way out of social problems or criminal problems. This invasive approach to the human body is, in truth, inhuman. Nor can we ensure that chemically castrated prisoners will stop carrying out sexual offences. We know sexual violence is interwoven with power and control. There have been cases where sexual offenders continue to harm women and children even after chemical castration in order to fulfil power fantasies. The idea of injecting the unemployed with weight-loss drugs to get them back into work is simply grotesque. Some who are poor and unemployed can only afford cheap junk food which causes them to gain weight. If we want to get people into work then create good jobs, don't subject them to experimentation. Now couple all this with promises by Labour that artificial intelligence will be 'mainlined into the veins' of the nation. In this case, the vow is metaphoric, not literal. But Starmer does wish to subject this country to a mass experiment in the use of AI as a tool of government. We have seen already how AI simply replicates the biases of the humans who create it. So if a company has a history of selecting male, white candidates for jobs, then black applicants and women will be under-selected if AI is involved. This embrace of 'science as god', of 'science as panacea', is dangerous. It speaks of a government incapable of coming up with policies to address the problems besetting us. Science has no conscience. History proves that. Science matters deeply. It gives us the tools to make rational choices. But to lean on science as a crutch, to surrender our natural creativity and government responsibility to science, is to remove a large chunk of what makes us human.
The Herald Scotland
20-05-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
The super-rich are lying to us. Time we turned the tables
The Rich List, which has just made its annual appearance, is nothing but pornography: a slavering, debased and obsequious genuflection to Mammon. In the list, we so often see riches in the possession of those already born into unimaginable wealth, not the self-made; or hoarded by those who simply watch their inherited assets accrue vast interest, not those who create jobs or work like the rest of us. Read more by Neil Mackay The mere "wealthy" – the comfortable – aren't in these categories. Anyone who makes a million from nothing but their own sweat deserves respect. The mere wealthy – those on handsome six-figure salaries – pay their taxes, go to work, and often employ others. The super-rich – the billionaire class – are an entirely different matter altogether. Even those of the billionaire class who run businesses, are most often job destroyers not creators. How many high street stores died so Jeff Bezos could shoot his phallic rockets into space? How many federal employees did Elon Musk make redundant while he shoots his own phallic rockets into space? When hedge fund billionaires buy Scottish companies, the first act is often redundancies. It's stream-lining for efficiencies, we're told. Lies. It's sackings to increase the money going into billionaires' pockets and the pockets of their shareholders. How many companies have been strip-mined in Britain – often by foreign tycoons – so shareholders can buy flash new cars for their kids, fit outdoor swimming pools, or get the yacht which guarantees entry to the new aristocracy? Those strip-mined companies were all making money – just not enough to satisfy the super-rich. There's always more sweat to ring from plebs. Your labour goes in, their wealth comes out. That's the equation. In Scotland, Harbour Energy will eventually axe 600 jobs in total despite issuing nearly £1 billion in shareholder dividends. But, of course, taxation is blamed. It's rampant greed. Over the last few decades, the number of billionaires has risen in direct proportion to the decline in income for the vast swathe of ordinary people. Where did we hear that refrain before? In the anthem of the Great Depression: 'One thing's sure and nothing's surer, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer.' The glitter from the ever-growing mountains of billionaires' gold is blinding us. We seem unable to see the parents starving themselves so their kids can eat, while they work three part-time minimum wage jobs. Perhaps the glow isn't glitter, though, perhaps its radiation burning a hole through our society. How can democracy be worth the word in an era of such income inequality? The billionaire class buys democracy. We vote. That's all. Our say boils down to an X on a ballot every five years. The billionaire-class can speak directly to power, indeed the billionaire-class tells power what to do. Political donations are price-attached. Tom Hunter, described with a curtsey as "Scotland's first home-grown billionaire", is currently lecturing us on economics. Fundamentally, he wants lower taxes, and fantasises about some Caledonian Singapore. 'Nothing is free in Singapore, but here everything seems to be,' he claims. The poor and hungry, unable to buy clothes for their children, must hang on his every word. 'A different tack needs to be taken,' Hunter says. The irony would choke you. Here's a man – a knight of the realm, no less – calling for our failed economic system to fail even more. Since the 1980s, the policies which made Hunter rich, made millions poor. Of course he wants to not just keep the current economic model in place, but to entrench it even further. It worked for him. It's done nothing for the rest of us. However, he's right on one matter: a different tack needs taken. The billionaire class must be dealt with, as they were dealt with before: first, through smashing monopolies – the same medicine robber barons tasted in the 19th century – and then through reimagined programmes like Roosevelt's New Deal and the creation of the Welfare State to rebalance the scales in the interests of the people. To continue along the path we're on economically is to slit democracy's throat. Why wouldn't people vote for the far-right if democracy only makes them poorer? The billionaire class is lying to you, wilfully deceiving you. They demand more of the same – in fact, an even more unequal system than exists now – because they benefit from the status quo. Evidently, billionaires will fight like hell to deepen the current system: it works for them. Most of us are so drugged to the eyeballs on the baubles we purchase from the super-rich – their streaming TV, their social media– that we cannot see their fingers dipping into our pockets like thieves. There's a saying now: your enemies do not arrive in small boats, they arrive in yachts and private jets. It's true. How many high street stores died so Jeff Bezos could shoot his phallic rockets into space? (Image: Getty) A media system owned by the billionaire class works tirelessly to blame anyone but themselves for the woes we endure. Migrants aren't hurting you, billionaires are. When Britain's Government says it cannot invest in better services for the people, that's lies. We're the sixth-largest economy on Earth. What the Government is actually saying is that it will not invest in better services because it won't tax the rich to the same extent that it taxes the rest of us. Equalising dividend and capital gains tax with income tax – in other words, taxing those who loaf around doing nothing but watch their money grow, to the same extent as those of us who work – would raise £21 billion. That's just for starters. A storm is coming. You can smell it. This system won't endure much longer. In America, the storm has already broken, dragging the nation into the maelstrom of MAGA. It's time to turn the tables. We either deal with the billionaire class in order to protect the people or we face America's terrifying storm clouds. Neil Mackay is the Herald's Writer-at-Large. He's a multi-award winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics.
The Herald Scotland
18-05-2025
- The Herald Scotland
How we are all being manipulated by the dark art of political framing
Ramp up the flimsiest evidence that fits your case, leave out all facts to the contrary, zoom in on threat and fear, use extreme and florid language, and crucially engineer an 'us versus them' narrative – and you're well on your way to shifting society's opinions into line with your own. Framing – the dark art of how to influence others – is older than language. In evolutionary terms, we're highly susceptible to our opinions being shaped by the wily and manipulative. To uncover the Machiavellian tricks that brainwash others without them knowing, The Herald on Sunday met with Professor Mikael Klintman, author of the new book Framing: The Social Art Of Influence, in his office at Sweden's Lund University. Professor Mikael Klintman The work is an indispensable guide to how information is distorted in the 21st century. Klintman is a leading expert on evolutionary sociology and how humans process information. First, let's look at the bizarre but true tale of two middle-class Brits in France. They found 'a wonderful can of gourmet pate', Klintman explains, 'labelled Mousse Gourmand'. It sounded so French, so delicious. They gobbled it up, then discovered they'd eaten catfood. Reality, Klintman explains, can be shaped and twisted. Call something 'gourmet' in France and exclude enough information (if you can't speak French, you won't know the 'pate' was actually Gallic Whiskas) and your frame is nearly complete. All you need is an 'us and them' narrative. In this case, the 'us and them' narrative is the same used by ad agencies: eat this, wear this, buy this and you'll be part of the in-crowd. For the tourists, being part of the in-crowd meant eating French food. 'Framing is the process of shaping reality,' Klintman says, 'so that certain aspects stand out while others fade away.' Reality is too huge for humans to grasp in its totality, he explains, so we have evolved to select facts deemed necessary for survival. It's necessary to eat food we believe is good. 'I'ts necessary to be part of the in-group.' Now let's jump from that minor but illustrative example of unconscious framing to a matter of life and death: climate change. READ MORE: Neil Mackay: Nazi salutes and why you should believe the evidence of your own eyes Neil Mackay: Labour is a psychopathic government that's just as bad as the Tories Neil Mackay: The stink of Reform is all over the Scottish Tories, they dread Farage Slogans You would think that the world's scientists telling us climate change is real and we've got to act would be enough to alter our behaviour, says Klintman. But it's not. He points to campaigning by Sweden's Green Party. 'Its latest slogan is 'the climate, the climate, the climate'.' It's too big a frame. To the average voter it seems that the Green Party wants to 'take this immense responsibility for the global wellbeing of everyone'. It also misses the 'tribal aspect' – the us and them narrative – which makes everyone tick, whether we like it or not. Unsurprisingly, Klintman explains, the Greens are 'doing quite badly in Sweden'. Better framing would see Greens tweak their messaging to explain 'what's in it for us Swedes', and how environmental policies would see 'Swedes get ahead, and be better off economically'. Klintman notes that the debate around land reform in Scotland is very much divided into 'us and them' narratives. On one hand, it's about ordinary people taking back land and 'redressing ancient wrongs', on the other it's framed as 'economic meddling'. Amsterdam in the late 1960s and early 1970s was the site of one of the most effective uses of framing. Then, it wasn't the bike-friendly city of today. Cars dominated and there were many fatalities, especially among cyclists. Klintman explains how a bunch of parents got together and started drawing chalk lines on roads to show where bike lanes could go. They began accusing motorists of 'child murder'. Then, as the early 1970s oil crisis hit, they added a financial factor to their frame: bikes are cheaper so people will save money if Amsterdam becomes bike-centric. The framing worked and today Amsterdam is, as Klintman says, 'the bicycle capital of the world'. Now clearly no motorist was deliberately killing children, but that hyper-emotional 'us and them' appeal was hugely effective. You can simply invent a frame and stand back and watch as people fill it. Klintman explains that, about 30 years ago, the term 'burnout' became popular. 'Someone invented the term and suddenly everyone was on sick leave. Employers were annoyed, asking 'how come everyone is starting to get burnout?'. When a frame is constructed, people feel it.' As he says, framing is essentially a fancy term for the old saying: 'A good salesman could sell sand in the Sahara.' If you don't frame an argument well, then forget it, nobody will listen. Klintman looked at studies into junk food and young men. In one study, they were told eating garbage would knock some years off their lives. 'The guys said, 'oh that's a shame but this tastes good so we're going to continue'.' Clearly, telling teenagers they'll only 'live to 90 instead of 95' won't resonate much. Then, however, another group was told that the junk food industry was a multi-billion-pound enterprise which was 'trying to convince, even deceive, you into buying this stuff'. The group was told that additives went into food to make it more addictive and that 'it's a cynical industry and they have aggressive lobbyists who put pressure on policymakers'. Tricks THAT frame worked. 'It triggered the hunter-gatherer in us.' It was crucial for our ancient ancestors not to be deceived. That's why we hate tricksters. Being conned back in the Stone Age likely meant death. Don't forget humanity lived as hunter-gatherers for well over 90% of our existence on Earth. Ancient traits run deep. 'We've evolved to be really alert to not being deceived. So it's a much better frame to have a concrete out-group who tries to fool you.' Klintman suggests parents who are worried about smartphones should pursue that framing strategy, and claim tech companies trick us about child welfare. 'We need ancestral resonance frames which trigger our long genetic memory,' he says. Focusing on exam results may be less effective than simply scapegoating tech giants. Klintman says that, across the West, the same tactic is now being used by the right when it comes to issues like immigration or LGBT rights. 'We have a strong readiness to define who is with us and who is against us,' he says. That makes us susceptible to 'politicians who work really hard at making voters distinguish between 'us and them' and create suspicion'. For the left, it's 'much harder' to sell any narrative which pushes the notion of having 'a world as one and overcoming social injustice'. But clearly, he notes when the left does adopt an 'us and them' narrative it tends to win. Klintman points to left-wing revolutions which succeeded because an 'in-group and out-group' was set up that 'created anger and immense energy' around the idea of 'exploitation'. Just think of what happened to French aristocrats when they were turned into an out-group. To defeat the right, Klintman says the left must harness some of these harsher tactics. He categorises framing as either 'Apollonian or Dionysian'. The god Apollo was wise and kind, so that's the big broad frame of 'let's save the world'; the god Dionysus was wild and chaotic and that's the tighter 'group-oriented' frame. Framing is also very time-specific. You need to push your framing at the right moment. Amsterdam's shift to becoming the global bike capital was helped considerably by the oil crisis. Klintman turns to women's rights and the role of women in the workplace. Clearly, there were calls – especially among the 50% of the population who were women – for equal rights prior to the 20th century. But until the First World War, the argument had a tight moral frame centred on the issue of equality. Suddenly, though, as war broke out, women were needed in ammunition factories with men at the front. That much bigger frame of protecting the wider group changed the game. Professor Mikael Klintman Timing INDUSTRIAL expansion from the 1950s onwards, he says, was the next accelerant. Again, women were needed in the workplace and that made the frame for equal pay and better conditions become more salient. Similarly, today, amid economic crisis, the framing of immigrants as an economic drain has more resonance than it would ordinarily. What's bad can be made good by carefully-timed framing. Evidently, Hitler is the ultimate example, Klintman explains. In the midst of economic chaos, Hitler framed persecuting Jews as an act which benefited Germany. His monstrous framing worked. Donald Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' mantra also turns bad into good. Klintman explains that what Trump is essentially doing is framing more oil extraction as an act which benefits the American people. 'It's about strengthening our group in the US, that we shouldn't let others from outside – especially not from politically correct places like America's east coast or Europe – dictate.' You can, if you're smart, also exploit bad acts against you and frame yourself as the good guy. Take Kazakhstan. The country was ruthlessly mocked by the comedian Sasha Baron Cohen as Borat. Initially, the mockery hurt Kazakhstan. 'People were really offended. They were pissed off, and I understand that. It's a poor country with many challenges and this was punching down.' Kazakhstan's tourist board launched adverts which seemed fairly traditional – lovely shots of the country and its people and food – but the final words were 'very nice!', said in the voice of Borat. They'd taken his damaging catchphrase and 'turned it into something positive'. The frame that Kazakhstan had put on itself was pretty cool. The country seemed 'ironic, self-deprecating, they'd the self-confidence to joke about themselves. It takes a lot of strength to do that'. There's a symbiotic relationship between politics and the media when it comes to framing. Politicians use framing to divide us and win votes, and the media continually 'repeats' these frames. Say a frame often enough and it 'becomes the truth'. The simplicity of framing attracts the type of journalism that's big on sensation and low on interrogating facts. You'll see much less framing in, say, The Financial Times than on GB News. 'That framing of two sides – one good, one evil – really connects,' says Klintman. He points to the work of the psychiatrist Carl Jung who studied what is known as 'archetypes' found in the world's best-known and oldest stories. 'The clear simplicity of storylines with one character who is good and one who is bad resonates very well.' Even something as mundane as the weather can be framed. Klintman could simply look out his window in Lund and say 'it's cloudy'. That's a very 'thin' frame with little detail and so it hasn't much impact on anyone. But if he started to claim that such miserable weather was what made the Vikings great explorers then 'I could turn this frame that it's cloudy into something very positive'. Have some 'beautiful, famous person' say those words, rather than a university professor, he adds, and the frame improves. Immigrants MOST criticism – whether of books, plays, films or art – is heavily framed. You could simply say that Charles Dickens is a great writer because of how he documented Victorian life, but leave out the fact that sometimes Dickens wrote in wearyingly long metaphors. So you wouldn't give a full picture of him as a writer, just a tightly framed and biased close-up. 'It's about how you position your frame,' says Klintman. 'You elevate some things, you overlook others. That's frame positioning: what is it you're zooming in on?' In journalism, it's classic editing by omission. Klintman says framing isn't just about positioning, but also texture, temperature and size. Take texture. That's about detail. The more detail you include, then 'the smoother' the frame. You'll often see frames with lots of detail about the in-group, but little about the out-group. The out-group gets a 'rougher' frame. It goes back to the 'evolutionary basis' of framing, he says. We know lots about our own group, so that makes us more empathetic, but little about outsiders so that limits empathy. Think of the infamous 'they're eating the dogs' claim that Trump used against Haitian immigrants. Most Americans know little about Haiti, so that rough framing comes into play. It would have been impossible for Trump to use such claims about Americans he deems opponents, say liberal college students, as they're still part of the in-group. Again, says Klintman, 'texture has to do with binaries, with good versus bad'. Then there's heat. You can heat up frames. 'The heat of a frame is about how emotionally engaging it is.' Think of those Amsterdam parents calling motorists child killers. 'That frame was smoking hot,' Klintman adds. But a super-hot frame won't work unless there's a clearly defined out-group. In New Delhi, says Klintman, environmentalists claimed pollution was a 'crime against humanity that's killing many, many people'. That's a very hot frame, but it didn't 'resonate' as it had no out-group. Everyone in New Delhi was creating pollution, the rich and the poor. 'So there wasn't any convincing story there.' You have also got to land your frame on 'the zeitgeist'. Klintman has looked at how his own students react to some moral issues. When asked if they think people should be subjected to a 'carrot or stick' approach when it comes to environmental matters like driving less, most vote for the carrot. 'They almost always say it should be voluntary, and you should give encouragement.' But on an issue like someone making sexual remarks in the office, the students back the stick. They're shocked at any suggestion which links curtailing inappropriate behaviour with reward or encouragement. However, 70 years ago, Klintman says, you could imagine an office in which someone was rewarded for being 'the perfect gentleman of the week' because they hadn't behaved inappropriately. 'Maybe, in a few years, people will feel more aggressive towards those who continue to fly, drive or eat meat,' he adds. If that happens, then the frame can change. READ MORE: Neil Mackay: Starmer has cured me of my Labour nostalgia. Now I know it's indy for me Neil Mackay: English nationalism will be the death of the union Neil Mackay: Gangsters are terrorising Scotland, but do our politicians care? Freedom THE smoking ban reflects many of the key issues around framing: positioning, whether the frame is thick or thin, and heat and texture. The issue was bogged down in debates between those who focused on health and those who focused on freedom. Then, however, the issue of occupational health was brought into the frame. The idea being that someone's freedom to smoke in bars could result in cancer for the bar staff. The smoking ban reflects many of the key issues around framing, says Mikael Klintman So, the position of the frame changed. It heated up with the idea of innocent people dying, it got thicker in terms of the amount of information to process, and more texture was added when it came to information on the people involved. Indeed, smokers became an effective out-group, in some sense. 'It was reframed,' says Klintman. Result? Smoking bans all over the world. Framing doesn't depend on lying. 'People aren't very gullible when it comes to believing what's false. But we're extremely susceptible to how things are framed,' he adds. However, there's an element of misinformation in framing, mostly due to what's left out of the picture or the way the picture is presented. 'It's more about being misleading than making false claims. You don't have to lie in order to deceive.' For example, there are crimes committed by migrants. 'You can make it sound as if that's something inherent in that group, that it's in their nature or something in their culture makes them more inclined to commit crime.' However, that framing depends on leaving out the fact that immigrant communities are more 'marginalised', and all marginalised communities – regardless of race – see higher levels of crime linked to poverty. Such framing also ignores similar crimes committed by non-migrants. A British example might be grooming gangs, where paedophile offences by white men are seldom raised by the right when such crimes are discussed. Some right-wing voices often refer to migrants coming to Britain as 'males of fighting age' – a frame which implies violence. That excludes findings by refugee charities which say many migrants are young men because the journey from nations like Iran across Europe, where there's exposure to the risk of violence or rape and people traffickers, is less dangerous for single men than women or families. 'A big part of framing is the reality that's left out,' Klintman says. 'That's used to mislead, even though it might not be lies. You can lie with valid facts by leaving certain things out. With framing you can get away with misleading without being accused of lying.' To inoculate yourself against manipulative framing, you need to think 'what's the context? What alternate frames could there be if we broaden it out and ask what the situation is for certain groups'. Every issue has multiple frames put over it, from Covid and the Ukraine War, to a domestic argument with your partner, or your relationship with your boss. Reward WE can see the roots of framing going back to the animal kingdom, to a time before the human race. Klintman explains that simple experiments with gorillas show framing at work. Let's say you have 10 pieces of fruit for a gorilla. If you give the ape one piece, followed by one piece, followed by one piece, but then interrupt the pattern and give two pieces, the animal will show signs of happiness. Food has been framed as a reward. However, if you just give those same 10 pieces of fruit one by one, with no interval where there are two pieces offered, the same gorilla shows no signs of happiness – even though it's received the same amount. Food is just food. The same amount of food has been framed in different ways. This is framing around what's called 'loss aversion', Klintman explains. The gorilla is being made to feel that it's losing something when it's actually not. 'Framing came before human language,' he adds. That's why if you see a teacher in a classroom sitting on a chair that's higher than the pupils, power is being framed. It's primitive body language as framing. When Klintman was younger, his boss at Ikea, where he worked, played the gorilla trick with bonuses. Extra money was handed out randomly, not annually at Christmas, for example. Framing the reward this way, as something unexpected, 'made us happy, like the gorillas – we got two fruits – so we worked our asses off'. Before we evolved into humans, disgust was a vital sense for our ape-like ancestors. It saved them from contaminated food or diseased dead bodies. So, framing around disgust and disease remains powerful today. Think of the metaphor 'a cancer in society'. Klintman notes how Trump often accuses his enemies of being 'disgusting'. On the flip side, Klintman notes that when a colleague at an academic conference took out MAGA hats and asked the audience to wear them they evinced 'disgust, like it was contaminated, as they were liberals'. They were also been pushed into the frame of their perceived out-group. Last summer's far-right riots in Britain perfectly illustrate framing at its worst, Klintman says. The murders of three young girls were falsely blamed on migration. We should look at the disorder from 'an evolutionary perspective'. What unfolded led to a 'mobilisation against the other group'. A similar dynamic was at play during Covid when Asian people were targeted for abuse and even attack. So it's crucial, Klintman believes, that young people learn in school about framing – what's left out of the picture, what's exaggerated, what's designed to manipulate us – 'if we want to preserve and strengthen our democratic societies'. To some degree, Klintman believes, we open ourselves to being manipulated in the way we structure our lives. In a sense, we put a frame around ourselves. He notes that he spends most of his days with people very similar to himself – white, educated, middle class. We may be less inclined to fall for framing if we meet people from 'many different groups'. Liberals KLINTMAN notes how many working-class communities in the West were damaged by job losses over recent years while liberal-left political leaders who once represented low-income voters were not. The result was working-class voters and the parties they traditionally voted for began looking at the world through different frames, and the bond disintegrated between them. 'That made it easy for the right to present these simple framings of 'us and them', that we've been fooled long enough by both left elitists and immigrants.' The left thought about politics on 'a big large global scale, of a better world, but forgot about the risk of unemployment. It's easy to be idealistic when you're not at risk'. So the framing was all wrong. Clearly, adverts work the same as political propaganda in terms of framing. Ad execs 'are the masters of framing', and the industry is stocked with behavioural research experts. Their trick is framing products around 'identity – who we want or don't want to be'. Klintman loves watches. He's references Patek Philippe adverts for watches which can cost millions, which use the slogan 'you never actually own a Patek Philippe watch, you merely look after it for the next generation'. An item of obscene expense and gross ostentation is turned into a product associated with values like fatherhood. The image which accompanies the tag line is often of fathers and sons. 'The most vain thing becomes something admirable,' Klintman explains. Again, it's about out-groups and in-groups: do you want to be the handsome, cool, kind dad? Sure you do, so buy this watch. Framing can also nudge you. The ad industry often hits you online with ads for wildly expensive goods. That triggers feelings of being unable to afford luxuries. Nobody likes to feel poor. So you might look at cheaper goods by the same brand and end up buying mid-range products. 'It's about broadening the frame from what feels outrageous to what feels normal.' The same happens in politics. An extreme statement will catch your attention, probably online, and it may nudge you towards similar but less extreme views. 'You're not Nazi, you're not Stalinist, but you'll maybe go halfway,' Klintman adds. Social media is the great 'accelerant'. It 'excels at retexturing frames – turning nuanced issues into stark binaries'. Social media, therefore, works perfectly for 'us v them' narratives. 'This can mobilise support but also harden opposition,' Klintman adds. He notes the climate activist Greta Thunberg's use of social media which frames the environmental debate as good versus bad, and heats the issue to the max with 'emotional appeals' such as fear and anger. However, when used well, framing 'broadens' the appeal of climate action by, for example, linking it with the creation of new jobs. Framing goes deep into our professional lives too. At work, framing is constantly at play. If managers soften their frame from 'you're not meeting expectations' to 'I see potential for you to develop', then they're retexturing the frame. If your boss says 'just do it', then you'll do it, but morale will fall. However, if the boss says 'doing this will eliminate stress' then the reframing encourages agreement. The board saying 'this is profitable' won't have the same positive effect on staff as executives saying this is 'morally right'. Klintman adds: 'I've personally encountered situations where an employee gets labelled a troublemaker by one manager for raising concerns about inefficiencies, but when a new leadership team comes in and sees the same concerns, suddenly that same employee is praised as a visionary. It's a pretty stark reminder that power is partly about controlling the frame.'
