They Keep Telling Us Who to Blame. What If We Stop Listening?
Updated: Sep 5
Something strange keeps happening in Britain. Problems that took years to build are repeatedly explained as though they were caused by whichever group is currently easiest to turn into a political target.
Rent is too high, wages do not stretch far enough, public services feel slower and millions of people are anxious about the future. Those frustrations are real. Yet the invitation is often to direct them sideways: at migrants, benefit claimants, trans people, older voters, younger voters, Londoners, people in the north, people on the left or people on the right.
Blame is easier than government
A serious explanation of a housing shortage has to discuss supply, planning, land, finance, social housing, population and decades of policy choices. A blame story needs one photograph and a caption. One is difficult to solve. The other is easy to share.
The same principle applies elsewhere. NHS waiting times cannot be understood through a single group of patients. Wage stagnation cannot be explained by one category of worker. Crime cannot be honestly understood from a viral video. Complex systems require complex explanations, even when those explanations are politically inconvenient.
What happens if we refuse the script?
Refusing a simplistic blame story does not mean denying pressure. Immigration has consequences for demand as well as benefits for labour supply. Population change affects housing and services. Crime matters. Borders matter. So do public finances. The point is that acknowledging a pressure is different from assigning collective guilt.
The useful political question is: who had the authority to prepare for this, regulate it, fund it or change it? That question directs attention toward decisions and institutions rather than towards neighbours who may have very little control over the problem.
The choice
People who disagree politically still share roads, schools, hospitals, workplaces and communities. If every failure is converted into a reason to despise another part of the population, the people responsible for fixing those failures receive less scrutiny, not more.
What if we stopped listening when somebody told us who to hate and instead asked them what they would actually do? What would it cost? Who would deliver it? How long would it take? And what evidence says it would work? That is a much harder conversation. It is also a more useful one.
Blame is politically useful because solutions are harder
Housing shortages involve planning, construction, land values, investment and decades of policy. Weak wage growth involves productivity, bargaining power, skills, investment and the structure of the economy. NHS pressure involves workforce, demand, social care, public health and funding. None of those explanations fits neatly on a graphic designed to make one group of neighbours look responsible.
Scapegoating solves that communications problem. Instead of asking why Britain has not built enough homes, the argument becomes which outsider received one. Instead of asking why wages have been weak, the argument becomes which migrant supposedly took the job. Instead of examining how services were planned, the queue itself is turned into evidence that another community is taking too much.
That does not mean immigration has no effect on demand or labour markets. It means effects should be measured rather than used as an all purpose explanation. The people with the greatest power over housing, taxation, regulation and public services benefit when public anger is directed horizontally at another household instead of upward at the decisions that shaped the system.
TruthVsHate.com view on this story
The question “who benefits?” should therefore apply not only to money. It should apply to attention. Who gains when people experiencing the same insecurity are persuaded to see each other as the cause?
Sources and further reading
Truth Vs Hate publishes the sources behind our reporting so readers can check the evidence, context and claims for themselves. Transparency matters because readers should be able to verify what we say rather than simply take our word for it.
Office for National Statistics: https://www.ons.gov.uk/
Institute for Fiscal Studies: https://ifs.org.uk/
Comments