Punching Down
Readers will be familiar with the terrible egg-related violence from 2014, but, as Labour announce their first budget today (subtitled: ‘Punching Down”) we thought it would be a good moment to write a brief history of punches, fracas and general low-level violence in British politics. The following was of course inspired by Labour’s Mike Amesbury who has had an unfortunate altercation with a constituent that was caught on camera:
Amesbury sucker punched a constituent to the ground then continued to violently beat him, the victim did not once fight back.
Mike Amesbury is a member of Parliament and we, the public are paying his salary.
He needs to be arrested.pic.twitter.com/RgDyMv2IM0
— Halima Khan (@HalimaNyomi) October 27, 2024
and we’re all familiar with the altercation between UKIP’s Steve Woolfe and the fabulously named Mike Hookem which left us with this iconic snap:
… and more recently Nigel Farage has been the subject to repeated ‘Milk Shake Attacks’ by protesters: whilst walking on the campaign trail in Newcastle back in 2019; and by Victoria Thomas-Bowen in Clacton earlier this year …
Footage of the milkshake being thrown onto Nigel Farage in Clacton
Look at unassuming lady on the left in white pic.twitter.com/y9B2nNma8A
— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) June 4, 2024
While it’s clear that Nigel is the man who brings all the milkshakes to the yard, it’s not clear whether this constitutes ‘violence’ as such?
How would we judge, for example, Nigel’s milk-shaking next to John Precott’s soaking at the hands of the vegan-inspired Danbert Nobacon of Chumbawamba in 1998?
Of course, there is no such doubt about the left-jab from John Prescott after being ‘egged’ while on a visit to North Wales, earning him a shift from the sobriquet ‘Two Jags’ to the more populist ‘Two Jabs’.
In 2001 John’s boss Tony was hit by a tomato at Bristol University at a protest against the build-up to war in Iraq.
But these seem like amateurs next to this pelting of Michael Heseltine by parents and children protesting a school closure in Liverpool 1982.
and here’s Peter Mandelson getting an expensive suit coated with custard in 2009 by a Plane Stupid protester campaigning against Heathrow expansion.
Such acts are frequently condemned – but the actual violence meted out by these politicians is on an unimaginable scale, and now the Stochastic violence of the sort of language generated by the far-right in Britain and in America puts such actions into proper perspective. It’s also worth mentioning that while most of the ‘fun’ incidents are conducted by those often on the left, the far more serious actual violence is overwhelmingly from the right.
Paradoxically, this tradition of non-violent direct action presupposes a general level of trust and of non-violence. It has a long history, as The Spectator recounts: “Unionist Minister Lord Winterton recalled how, during a set of hustings in Dundee, he was left smelling ‘like an amateur sewage farm’ after a bucketful of excrement was dumped on him from the gallery above. ‘Thus perish all Tories,’ the culprit had declared as he emptied the receptacle” and …
“Joseph Chamberlain was hit in the face by a herring at a rally in Sheffield during the 1874 General Election, described by the journalist J.L.Garvin as ‘savage and disorderly.’ In 1892, Gladstone was hospitalised by a flying gingerbread biscuit which injured one of his eyes. His sight never properly recovered.”
Some violence is imagined or manufactured for political ends. Think Ruth Davidson’s famous apocalyptic ‘burly men’ fantasy, or Nigel Farage’s invention that he can’t do any work in his Clacton constituency for fear of violent attack.
Of course John Prescott and Mike Amesbury reverse the usual pattern of the public attacking politicians (and in Prescott’s case with good cause), while the UKIP punch-up is strictly of the Blue-on-Blue category. But while the direct action of egging and milkshaking will continue to be roundly condemned the financial violence of capitalism or the state-sanctioned violence (at home or abroad) continues to be sanctioned and framed as essential. The violence of loyalists mobs in Glasgow, fascist mobs in England, or police violence against women and minorities is off-the-scale next to the performative acts of splatting politicians.
Oh that chanti pot drop in Dundee did make me laugh.
Good : )
‘While it’s clear that Nigel is the man who brings all the milkshakes to the yard, it’s not clear whether this constitutes ‘violence’ as such?’
Ehm… unless you include the Offences Against the Person Act (s.39 Battery) and/or the 1986 Public order Act, Criminal Damage to his suit of course (and no, for the rancher experts out there it doesn’t have to be permanent). Which is only England and Wales. Get North of the border and it’s even easier to see how this could well end up with you in front of the beak: the ‘two-cop-bop having been superseded with the now trendy s.38 Breach of the Peace. All those offences and that’s in just this one example of ‘this tradition of non-violent direct action’.
I’m amongst the first to roll my eyes and harrumph when the political class bemoan their lot or confect dastardly deeds to boost their profile, but advocating the normalisation of what is definitely political violence against anyone…, well, no! On reflection this might not have been your wisest piece – and not just because it’s very poorly researched for the reasons above.
Fascinating. But if you’d read you’d have noticed the wider point:
“But while the direct action of egging and milkshaking will continue to be roundly condemned the financial violence of capitalism or the state-sanctioned violence (at home or abroad) continues to be sanctioned and framed as essential. The violence of loyalists mobs in Glasgow, fascist mobs in England, or police violence against women and minorities is off-the-scale next to the performative acts of splatting politicians.”
I’m sorry but there if there’s a wider point here it’s escaping me, Editor.
You either abhor political violence or you condone it. That’s it. You can’t approve of some and in the same breath criticise others for indulging in what they then consider to be an acceptable level or against what they’d see as a justifiable target.
And as for the asinine contention made in the face of hard legal fact that what you supported wasn’t really violence…?
I might think that Farage is someone you can’t really discuss until meeting up the day after Monday o the week following this, but in a democracy you either support the principle of free speech or and electoral democracy or you don’t. If he’s that poor, and he is, it shouldn’t be that difficult to rip his arguments apart.
There is a wider point and it is escaping you.
Indeed and it is, because what you appear to be suggesting here is that you don’t mind violence against people you dislike (you don’t even want to call it violence, for goodness sake) but somehow take exception when others who would justify their actions and approach using exactly the same mentality do likewise.
There’s no middle ground, political violence is wrong and no good has ever come from it. It was proved in France in 1789, it was proved again in the Weimar years (where the far right actually relied on goading the left to create mayhem and increase its vote), and there’s no evidence to suggest that it’d be any different now.
Happy to be taken on a journey, so go for it, but it’ll have to be helluva ride to get you out of this hole. The last thing Scotland needs is a ‘Tartan Robespierre’.
Hi Augustin
this is a light-hearted article about politicians punching each other and a women throwing a milk shake at Nigel Farage.
Try to avoid being so pompous and ridiculous and making a complete arse of yourself.
Have a great weekend.
The Editor.
If it’s pomposity to eschew political violence in all its forms, to fear where that could lead once the path has been started on, then I’m guilty as charged. There’s nothing light-hearted about violence. There’s nothing light-hearted about a poorly researched and potentially impactful piece of political commentary condoning something that simply should not be countenanced.
You’re not exactly shy about jumping up and throwing your weight around when others are mistakenly taken for something you have a dislike for (right-wing, I think it was in my case). And, given the comments in this piece here, it might be time you took stock. Not least as what you attempt to pass off as ‘light-hearted’ would undoubtedly be taken as something much more sinister by you if it happened to a politician you were supportive of – image the howls of ultra-right, extremist whatever there would be then then.
I’ve no issue with anyone playing to a gallery, we’ve all got earn a crust after all. But when you publicly proffer enemies and condone violence I simply see danger. Personally, I have political opponents – opponents in the form of Farage etc that can often be beaten with ease in an argument – I don’t need to demonise folk (however much I might dislike some). Most journalist I know have this old maxim about a pen being something, something… now what is it again? You really shouldn’t start an argument (in the philosophical sense) if you can’t take on dissenting views, and you certainly should never run away. So… let’s have that justification for this piece, then.
Hi Augustin
I’ve given you my advice, you’ve rejected it. I have no more time to spend with your fascinating views. Have a great weekend.
Yours
The Editor
Hi Editor,
I’m struggling to see where you’ve engaged. You’ve pulled at phraseology, you’ve tried to pass it off as something it’s not, yes, but engaged…?
I’ll re-read again to try and find if I’m being unfair and there is an explanation or examination of the piece I’ve missed. In the meantime, you have a good weekend too.
A
Most of the egg/tomatoe/… throwing is at politicos who either no longer listen or who have never listened to the public. As the article notes – politicos institute state-sanctioned violence against any & all citizens that they don’t like. & if it is not violence – then its “lock-em-up” – e.g. the M25 people (who were certainly not violent and a danger to none). Time to turf out 95% of the Uk boldy politic.
Editor, it appears Citizen Smith has gotten hold of your password. Seriously though, if this what you believe, and that would of course be your right, we’re all democrats here, it’s an interestingly naive world view.
Politicos, as you would have it, do not “lock-em-up” in this country (thankfully), that’s left to an independent judiciary following a trial with the guilt often decided by a jury of their peers. If you have a better system I’m all ears. As for this repressive ‘state-sanctioned violence” under which we all cower, I’m afraid I must have missed it… would you know if there’s a refund on my taxes available for having missed out?
And here was me thinking that the inability to recognise violence was your only issue.
I think it possibly best to leave this type of political rhetoric to the kids, Editor. They possess the necessary innocence (and lack the encumbrance of responsibility) to allows them to be truly passionate – wrong, but passionate with an honestly held belief. This stuff here is, just, well not the same calibre.