Jo Cox MP: a price too high

However, if we care to look for it, there is also ample evidence of the nobler side of politics and politicians. Mrs. Jo Cox was by all accounts a fine examplar of the better angels of political humanity.

Speaking this morning to a member of my immediate family who had met Ms Cox on several occasions, but did not know her well, I was struck by the depth of his sadness.  He spoke of the killing not simply as an emotionally remote national tragedy, but as the source of a very raw, personal sorrow and bewilderment.

While a restless undercurrent of wariness and weariness undergirds our attitudes to political elites, Jo Cox was one MP who clearly knew how to connect with and impact even casual acquaintances. 

There is, of course, an added sadness within this story – that the alleged killer appears to have a history of mental health issues. Whether or not he shouted “Britain first” before slaying Ms Cox, as some witness reported, Tommy Mair’s alleged actions cannot be associated with any recognised political position. Neither the EU referendum nor political debates in general are the central narratives here. This is about a human and national tragedy, not a political statement.

Yet Mr. Mair’s alleged actions, driven though they apparently were by illness, might serve as an extreme example of what can happen if we build too close a link between personal grievances, real or imagined, and public figures whom we’ve never met.

In the UK, complaining about politicos and their dearth of problem-solving skills is a national pastime. Doubtless the criticism is often deserved.

Yet ours is no longer a world in which national effects are almost always directly related to decisions made by people in easily identifiable positions of power.

The forces of globalisation are at work in politics, economics, business, trade and much more. They bring undoubted benefits, but they also muddy the waters when it comes to who is politically responsible for what.

This is, of course, largely what the EU referendum debate is about – political, legal and economic sovereignty. The EU is one manifestation of globalisation and trans-nationalism.

On one side, globalisation is a boon to national and personal progress and aspiration. It creates global markets and opportunities for mass innovation, travel and dialogue. Its flip side, however, can create in an electorate feelings of powerlessness beyond which be the dragons of frustration and fury.

We elect officials to carry out our wishes. They set out to achieve those wishes – or whatever version of their party’s manifesto most closely resembles them.

Over time, though, individual politicians and party collectives find that regional and global forces often push things in a different direction. To us their electors, this looks at the very least like abject failure on their part. At worst, it smacks of an arrogant disregard for our intentions. In fact, the reasons are usually more complicated.