Mark R. Davis

Our media fixation with Keir Starmer is becoming a literal drag on the country now. As I write this, I can already see the replies forming below, accusing me of being a Labour shill etc. but, believe it or not, I am not. Maybe it's worth setting this out — I have no party affiliation. None. I'm not 'on the right' … but that's as far as it goes. There are policies and people that I admire across the Lib Dems, Greens and Labour. Conversely, there are policies and people I am vehemently against within each of those parties as well. There are some decent Conservatives left but fewer and fewer in frontline politics and I can have excellent discussions with those moderate Tories that remain. Where my line in the sand is drawn though, as I'm sure you're all aware, is the far-right. Reform UK and Restore Britain. I have no common ground with their populism — I see through the propaganda. This doesn't mean that I think every member of Reform UK is a bad person, far from it, but I cannot rationalise their top-line bravado into credible politics. So, with all that being said, I think the witch-hunt of Keir Starmer is distracting the public from some far more serious crises. Since the very day Starmer took office, there has been an onslaught from the media; desperation to try and topple him and his principal team. This played out successfully with Angela Rayner, and they have been vicious and relentless pursuing Rachel Reeves. I listened to Paul Brand on LBC at the weekend continuously comparing Starmer to Boris Johnson in terms of sleaze. Have we collectively lost our minds? There is no other Prime Minister in history that compares to Johnson for scandal. The elephant in the room — Peter Mandelson. But is it really an elephant still? Clearly, Starmer should never have brought the Prince of Darkness into his team, that was a madness and severe failing of judgement. One for which he has accepted responsibility and apologised on multiple occasions. The vetting process appears to be, pretty much, a non-story, despite what Dan Hodges and GB News are shovelling out. So … we should be moving on. Shouldn't we? Kemi Badenoch and her famously robust judgement felt not yesterday, and spent more of her diminishing political currency by pushing Starmer with six questions at PMQs on the subject. She was met with a well briefed lawyer, that, in all honesty, made her look a bit silly for continuing her defeated line of questioning. While this continues to dominate the headlines, other far more crucial issues are being missed — we're going to run low on fuel soon, the cost of living is about to skyrocket, holidays will be cancelled imminently. But mainly ... the cost of living is about to skyrocket. We saw in yesterday's inflation rise that food is already moving upward, if Trump's ludicrous war in Iran continues, then we're all going to suffer the consequences. Surely, this is a far more pressing matter? One in which the government should be fully engaged in order to help protect the public — it's number one duty. It is very telling that Reform UK are spending very little time on the Starmer issue. They sent Lee Anderson out to raise this issue, for goodness’ sake. LEE ANDERSON. Farage is hyper focused on the local elections, safe in the knowledge that the media is obsessing over Keir Starmer, once again. He's making hay while the S*n shines on Labour. Jeez! This went on a bit, sorry, but it feels critical to me. We are being led around by the nose by the legacy media outlets. They smell blood in the water, but I really don't think the story is there. Not yet. And while the sharks circle, Reform UK are flying under the radar, ready to swoop on the local elections [sorry for the weird mixed metaphors — it's early!]. Have a lovely sunny day. 🌞

What psychoanalysis as a treatment offers that most secular frameworks do not: a theory of human evil that is also a theory of human potential. Freud argued that the aggressive and sexual instincts must be renounced for civilization to function. The renunciation is painful, the cost is guilt, and the result is the cultural achievements (art, science, ethical systems, legal structures) that make human life worth living. This is a story about why civilized behavior is difficult and why it matters anyway. It supplies a reason to be good that does not depend on divine reward. The reason is structural: the drives require containment because uncontained drives destroy the very relationships the organism depends on for survival.

“an unconscious thought would be a thought that does not think” (Merleau-Ponty 2012, 396).

I developed this theory with colleagues starting in the 1980s, and it became the scientific foundation for ACT. I want to explain it plainly, because it answers a question most people have never thought to ask: why does language create suffering? Relational Frame Theory is a scientific account of how human language and thinking work. The core finding is that humans, uniquely among animals, learn to relate anything to anything else in an almost infinite number of ways: this is like that, this is better than that, this causes that, this is the opposite of that. This ability is what gives us science, art, and civilization. It also means we can never fully escape painful experiences by changing our environment, because any situation, any word, any sunset can trigger an entire network of connected meanings that brings pain back. A dog can learn to avoid a hot stove by touching it once. A human being who has been hurt by someone named Michael can feel anxious meeting a new Michael who has done nothing wrong, simply because the name carries the relational network forward. That's RFT in action.

Here I'm going to explain the problem with treatment approaches that in some form endorse the idea that thoughts are meaningless or should be ignored (CBT, ACT, ERP). Let's say a patient has a thought of stabbing their newborn baby. It terrifies or disgusts them. They fear that this thought means they're going to actually harm their child, or they're going crazy and need to be locked up, or just that they're in fact a very bad person. We call it an "intrusive" thought because that's how it's experienced. Something "not me" is attacking "me". But where else could this thought be coming from except from "me"? But the patient doesn't really want to hurt their baby, so this thought is nonsensical and therefore meaningless, right? Or at least just ignore it, right? This is what CBT, ACT, and ERP tell us. And at first glance, this seems like a good way to think about it. In fact, some people are able to take a degree of comfort from the idea their thoughts are meaningless and they sometimes find their symptoms do lessen a bit: "Oh good, I'm actually not a bad or dangerous person." So what's so bad about this? If it helps, it helps, right? The problem is that the patient does continue to suffer in some form. Maybe the symptoms persist at a mild or moderate level. Maybe they come back later. Maybe they have intrusive thoughts about other things. Maybe they become depressed. Etc etc etc. Why do they continue to suffer? Because the thoughts actually do have meaning. Just because a thought isn't literally true, doesn't mean it's not symbolically true. Or carrying meaning in some form. Intrusive thoughts are parts of ourselves that we can't integrate into our conscious understanding of ourself, but it's still us and it comes back to haunt us in symbolic form and will continue to do so until we integrate it. So what could thoughts of harming a newborn baby mean? Here's a patient who maybe can't tolerate their own aggressive feelings towards people they also love. So no matter how much we present evidence that they'll not physically harm their child, this completely misses the mark of the true source of their suffering. We can't just treat the fever and ignore the underlying infection.