Deputy’s ‘woke-washing’ just stifles valid debates

Sadly, neither offered an explicit definition of ‘McWokeyism’, a.k.a. ‘woke culture’ so it is hard to know exactly what they oppose but it seems that Deputy Ferbrache uses this term as a catch-all to describe everything he disagrees with (be that social or economic policy) and to be lumped in with ‘navel gazing’ and ‘vanity projects’. Such ‘woke-washing’ only serves to stifle real debate. By pejoratively dismissing as being ‘woke’ or ‘morally righteous’ those who try to advance the idea that society grows richer by using the public purse to help the marginalised, Deputy Ferbrache seeks to ignore the duty of care a government owes to improving the quality of life of its people and not just to the collective coffers.

Further, this usage of being ‘woke’ is a corruption of the historic meaning of the term, which has its origins in the struggle for black civil rights in 20th century America and refers to waking up to the racial dynamics at play. Tagging progressive policies as ‘woke’ as part of a blanket rejection of them could easily be considered unthinking and culturally insensitive.

Instead of allowing our politicians and commentators to hide behind dog-whistle catchphrases and political bogeymen we, as a civil society, must grapple with the specifics of why so many in our Assembly oppose progressive policies which benefit those traditionally left behind. Mr Digard, to his credit, does attempt this in his article. It is hard, however, to understand how implementing a legal right to equal pay for work of equal value – the absence of which has resulted in a section of the workforce being underpaid up to £40m. a year – doesn’t have an obvious benefit to the taxpayer. That’s an extra £40m. that will be subject to taxation and spent on goods and services within the local economy, not to mention the increased attractiveness of working in the public sector to those who, without pay equality, have elected to use their talents in the private sector.

If those who say they are serious about championing practical politics and efficient government are true to their words then they should consider listening to people currently and recently affected by the issues they wish to address. Deputy Ferbrache thinks it a virtue to ‘bow my knee to no one when it comes to social policy’ due to his own background, as if the solution to today’s problems can all be fully informed by yesteryear’s experiences. Modern policies, such as the anti-discrimination legislation, are as vital as they are popular and the implementation of such legislation must not stall now the general election has been won. There is nothing practical nor efficient about continuing to leave behind those this legislation seeks to protect.

If this States’ ‘first concern’ truly is ‘creating opportunities for people’ then they must recognise the States role in investing in all people both directly and through infrastructure in order to realise society’s full potential. As the many deputies who campaigned on their business savvy will tell you, investments have a short term cost for a larger long term gain. Dismissing this as ‘McWokeyism’ creates opportunities for no one but doomsayers.

ALEX GARNER