Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, but in times past he walked with great men and had a long and productive history.
He will be remembered as having imparted many valuable lessons, such as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was actually my fault afer all.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound principles. He planned and set goals, never spent more than he earned and always believed that adults, not children, were in charge. In life he was seldom overtaken by events because he always considered the consequences of each action and was careful never to overlook the obvious.
His health started to fail when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were put in place. News reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash and playground conker tournaments banned on health and safety grounds caused him much distress.
He declined further when teachers were required to obtain consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student but could not inform her parents when the girl became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. And although he continued bravely to speak out his voice grew faint, possibly as a result of being beaten frequently about the head with The Rule Book by those who hide behind it as an alternative to independent thought.
His condition became grave as the churches became businesses, criminals received better treatment than their victims and you could no longer defend yourself from a burglar in your own home because the burglar might sue you for assault.
Our friend finally lost the will to live when a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of fresh coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, sued the restaurant and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; by his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason. He is, however, survived by his four stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, It's not my fault, and I'm A Victim. All four of these are now squabbling over his legacy.
Not many attended his funeral because, sadly, so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, please spare a moment to reflect on his passing. If not; join the majority, shrug your shoulders and do nothing.
Showing posts with label Society and Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society and Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Undemocratic Democracy
Well, here we go again.
The Greek Prime Minister may not have been making too many wise choices recently with regard to his country's finances but just the other day he distinguished himself. His call to give the Greek people a referendum on the latest Brussels-imposed series of swingeing austerity measures was like a breath of fresh air, and for two reasons. Firstly, because the Greeks ought to be given a voice. Their whole society is undergoing rapid and far-reaching change and it's only fair they should be consulted. But also secondly, and I feel far more importantly, because of the outcry it's provoked. Across Europe leaders of every flavour have been queueing up to denounce the Greek decision and say what a terrible idea it is that the people should be given a say in what their politicians are doing. One Radio 4 interviewee this morning expressed his fuming outrage at this "total lack of Greek support for the European project".
Interesting comment, that. The truth is that the European leaders do have a project and it's most inconvenient for them when democracy gets in the way. The Euro is a prime example. The Greek economic crisis is not a new thing, their economy has been in a mess for a good fifty years; they are vastly indebted, hardly anybody pays their taxes and their highly-paid public sector is vast and flabby. Anybody with half a brain could have seen the problems coming and that according to the figures Greece should never have been allowed into the Euro in the first place. But the figures were an inconvenience to the great European agenda so they were fudged, and here we are today. And it wasn't just Greece - several other nations were borderline cases for Euro membership too but were nonetheless triumphantly welcomed with much European flag-waving and booming recitals of Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
Most European governments do everything they can to avoid consulting their people on anything concerning Europe, our own included. They always have, but in recent years their fancy footwork to sidestep referenda on Europe or the Euro makes Strictly Come Dancing look like the painful hobblings of an old man with a stick. And what about the referenda we do get? Think back a little and you may remember that the Irish voted 'no' to the Lisbon treaty in 2009, and what happened? They re-ran the vote! Imagine if our next General Election didn't elect the government those in charge thought best for us. What would we say if they discounted our choice and told us to keep trying until we see it their way? Over my dead body - but that's what Europe did in 2009 and the Irish government let them.
An isolated occurrence? I'm afraid not. The Danes voted 'no' to the Maasticht treaty in 1992 and that one was circumvented as well. No wonder then that the Danes were denied a referendum by their own government on the Lisbon treaty in 2007. Wouldn't want the Danes throwing a spanner in the works a second time, would we?
Europe, when it was formed out of the ashes of the second-world war, was a good idea with noble aims but where are those aims today? The current crisis is exposing just how undemocratic Europe has become and how far it has strayed from its original purpose, and it is also exposing some senior Eurpoean politicians for the duplicitous and self-advancing scum they are. Which ones? Well, why don't you listen to their own voices on the radio and the TV and decide for yourself?
The Greek Prime Minister may not have been making too many wise choices recently with regard to his country's finances but just the other day he distinguished himself. His call to give the Greek people a referendum on the latest Brussels-imposed series of swingeing austerity measures was like a breath of fresh air, and for two reasons. Firstly, because the Greeks ought to be given a voice. Their whole society is undergoing rapid and far-reaching change and it's only fair they should be consulted. But also secondly, and I feel far more importantly, because of the outcry it's provoked. Across Europe leaders of every flavour have been queueing up to denounce the Greek decision and say what a terrible idea it is that the people should be given a say in what their politicians are doing. One Radio 4 interviewee this morning expressed his fuming outrage at this "total lack of Greek support for the European project".
Interesting comment, that. The truth is that the European leaders do have a project and it's most inconvenient for them when democracy gets in the way. The Euro is a prime example. The Greek economic crisis is not a new thing, their economy has been in a mess for a good fifty years; they are vastly indebted, hardly anybody pays their taxes and their highly-paid public sector is vast and flabby. Anybody with half a brain could have seen the problems coming and that according to the figures Greece should never have been allowed into the Euro in the first place. But the figures were an inconvenience to the great European agenda so they were fudged, and here we are today. And it wasn't just Greece - several other nations were borderline cases for Euro membership too but were nonetheless triumphantly welcomed with much European flag-waving and booming recitals of Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
Most European governments do everything they can to avoid consulting their people on anything concerning Europe, our own included. They always have, but in recent years their fancy footwork to sidestep referenda on Europe or the Euro makes Strictly Come Dancing look like the painful hobblings of an old man with a stick. And what about the referenda we do get? Think back a little and you may remember that the Irish voted 'no' to the Lisbon treaty in 2009, and what happened? They re-ran the vote! Imagine if our next General Election didn't elect the government those in charge thought best for us. What would we say if they discounted our choice and told us to keep trying until we see it their way? Over my dead body - but that's what Europe did in 2009 and the Irish government let them.
An isolated occurrence? I'm afraid not. The Danes voted 'no' to the Maasticht treaty in 1992 and that one was circumvented as well. No wonder then that the Danes were denied a referendum by their own government on the Lisbon treaty in 2007. Wouldn't want the Danes throwing a spanner in the works a second time, would we?
Europe, when it was formed out of the ashes of the second-world war, was a good idea with noble aims but where are those aims today? The current crisis is exposing just how undemocratic Europe has become and how far it has strayed from its original purpose, and it is also exposing some senior Eurpoean politicians for the duplicitous and self-advancing scum they are. Which ones? Well, why don't you listen to their own voices on the radio and the TV and decide for yourself?
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Why Getting it Right so often Goes Wrong
It may disturb you to learn this, but almost nothing ever gets done properly.
Take the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan for example. I read a report today that told me what I suspected almost from the moment it happened. In their report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Johannis Nöggerath, Robert J. Geller and Viacheslav K. Gusiakov said:
"The tsunami countermeasures taken when Fukushima Daiichi was designed in the 1960s were, arguably, marginally acceptable considering the scientific data then available. But, between the 1970s and the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting tsunami; however, this was ignored by both the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, and government regulators. The regulatory authorities failed to properly review the tsunami countermeasures in accordance with IAEA guidelines and continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures, despite having received clear warnings from at least one member of a government advisory committee..."
As an engineer this comes as no surprise. Almost everywhere I've ever worked makes the mistake of failing to consult the people at the sharp end, the ones who really know what the job entails and what it will take to do it right. Engineers know how to design things that won't go wrong, doctors know how to treat patients and sales assistants know how to keep customers happy but most of the time they don't get a say in how their organisation is structured and how their jobs are done. Instead these decisions are taken by managers, finance boards and steering committes that have no idea what really goes on at the shop floor. This causes a number of issues such as poor staff morale, inefficiency and wasted resources but the real problem is more subtle. And more worrying.
Let's suppose you're hiring a photographer for a family event. You'd explain to them exactly what you want them to achieve, and then you'd ask them what they would need to deliver that - what the cost would be, how much time they will need at the venue and what approach they recommend. A project like that has a good chance of success - you started off on the right foot by asking a professional to do a professional job and giving them the resources they need to achieve a professional result.
Unfortunately, though, most projects are anything but. What usually happens is that you tell the photographer they can only have half the money, must be in and out in fifteen minutes and you've already decided the shooting order - take it or leave it. Well, business is business so many photographers would just shrug and take the job anyway. They know the customer is not going to get a great result, they know corners will be cut and risks might be taken, but after all they are working within the constraints imposed on them so they will do the best they can under the circumstances, take your money and leave the consequences with you. And anyway, what's the problem? Less-than-perfect photographs wouldn't be the end of the world.
True - but a nuclear power plant like that just might be.
So often in today's world the driving principles are politics, vested interests and short-sighted economics instead of the quality of the outcome, and the result is Fukushima - a sub-standard bodge job that was never really fit for purpose and which almost blew up in everyone's face.
The same underlying mistake is repeated everywhere, over and over again, both throughout our public services and in many private companies. Decision-makers lose sight of the fact that without the product, their organisation would not exist. The product - be that a nuclear reactor, a satisfied customer or a healed patient - is everything. And their organisation is filled with people who have dedicated their working lives to providing that product in the best way possible but who rarely get listened to. Instead of making decisions for excellence they make them for expedience, and instead of creating products to meet a specification they make them fit a budget. And worst of all, they so often ignore the sage advice of Proverbs 11:14 - "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety".
Take the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan for example. I read a report today that told me what I suspected almost from the moment it happened. In their report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Johannis Nöggerath, Robert J. Geller and Viacheslav K. Gusiakov said:
"The tsunami countermeasures taken when Fukushima Daiichi was designed in the 1960s were, arguably, marginally acceptable considering the scientific data then available. But, between the 1970s and the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting tsunami; however, this was ignored by both the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, and government regulators. The regulatory authorities failed to properly review the tsunami countermeasures in accordance with IAEA guidelines and continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures, despite having received clear warnings from at least one member of a government advisory committee..."
As an engineer this comes as no surprise. Almost everywhere I've ever worked makes the mistake of failing to consult the people at the sharp end, the ones who really know what the job entails and what it will take to do it right. Engineers know how to design things that won't go wrong, doctors know how to treat patients and sales assistants know how to keep customers happy but most of the time they don't get a say in how their organisation is structured and how their jobs are done. Instead these decisions are taken by managers, finance boards and steering committes that have no idea what really goes on at the shop floor. This causes a number of issues such as poor staff morale, inefficiency and wasted resources but the real problem is more subtle. And more worrying.
Let's suppose you're hiring a photographer for a family event. You'd explain to them exactly what you want them to achieve, and then you'd ask them what they would need to deliver that - what the cost would be, how much time they will need at the venue and what approach they recommend. A project like that has a good chance of success - you started off on the right foot by asking a professional to do a professional job and giving them the resources they need to achieve a professional result.
Unfortunately, though, most projects are anything but. What usually happens is that you tell the photographer they can only have half the money, must be in and out in fifteen minutes and you've already decided the shooting order - take it or leave it. Well, business is business so many photographers would just shrug and take the job anyway. They know the customer is not going to get a great result, they know corners will be cut and risks might be taken, but after all they are working within the constraints imposed on them so they will do the best they can under the circumstances, take your money and leave the consequences with you. And anyway, what's the problem? Less-than-perfect photographs wouldn't be the end of the world.
True - but a nuclear power plant like that just might be.
So often in today's world the driving principles are politics, vested interests and short-sighted economics instead of the quality of the outcome, and the result is Fukushima - a sub-standard bodge job that was never really fit for purpose and which almost blew up in everyone's face.
The same underlying mistake is repeated everywhere, over and over again, both throughout our public services and in many private companies. Decision-makers lose sight of the fact that without the product, their organisation would not exist. The product - be that a nuclear reactor, a satisfied customer or a healed patient - is everything. And their organisation is filled with people who have dedicated their working lives to providing that product in the best way possible but who rarely get listened to. Instead of making decisions for excellence they make them for expedience, and instead of creating products to meet a specification they make them fit a budget. And worst of all, they so often ignore the sage advice of Proverbs 11:14 - "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety".
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Oh. No...
In case you haven't noticed, the British people just gave a resounding 'No' vote to voting reform, and in particular the replacement of our first-past-the-post system with the Alternative Vote (AV). That's quite interesting in itself, but what was more interesting was to hear the whinings of the high-profile champions of the defeated 'Yes' campaign on the radio and TV, telling us how we've missed a great opportunity but they were still right all along and will keep on chipping away at us until they get the result they want.
Hang on a minute - I thought this was a democracy, and the people just spoke.
It was an overwhelming and decisive 'No' vote and that surely should settle the matter once and for all. Or are we still back in the bad old days of the European referendums where more than once they've simply rerun the vote because they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time? How inconsiderate of the people to cause problems for their politicians.
Not this time, though. That's it guys, game over. Nobody wanted it. Let it go - and let's get on with more important things.
Why do I say that? Because the outcome of this referendum reveals two things. First, that quite a number of our politicians are still hopelessly out of touch with the will and desires of the people they say they represent. But we already knew that.
Secondly however the referendum shows us something else.
It shows us that the people spoke. They didn't do what the politicans told them to do. They made their own minds up. They saw through the arguments of the experts and leaders who pushed them into a referendum they didn't want, and they confounded them.
If you look at the trends in our society I believe we're going to see this more and more. This isn't like the days of old. This is the internet generation, the day of wikileaks revelations, of bloggers saying what the establishment won't, and of rebels tweeting to the world things their governments desperately want to suppress. More and more people now are thinking for themselves, gathering their own information and coming to their own conclusions. The establishment don't like this very much but it's too late, the genie is out of the bottle and no amount of frenzied cork-pushing is going to set things back to the nice, safe, predictable way they were before.
What we've just seen in the UK is, I believe, a microcosm of this. For the last ten years successive governments have been wringing their hands at the loss of the British identity. "What is Britishness?" they cried. "Where did it go? When did we lose it? How can we bring it back?" Well guess what boys, it's been a long dark night but I think there's a glow on the horizon.
For the last two and a half generations we've lost our way. Blown by every wind of thought and political doctrine we've put up with every kind of social experimentation. We've seen liberalism fail. We've tried the science-will-solve-all-your-problems 'White Heat of Technology'. That was supposed to give us a three-day working week and the paperless office, remember? We've tried liberal parenting and that gave us drink-fuelled thuggery and the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. We've tried secular humanism and it cost us our soul. We've tried immigration, importing others to do the lowly jobs Britons didn't want. They did them, and did them so well that we now bemoan their prosperity and success. We've tried both left-wing and right-wing economic and political dogma, both promising utopian success but leaving a twisted legacy of chaos. We've messed with the schools and the health service so many times we've forgotten what they are for. We've built tower blocks and torn them down again because they don't work. And most recently we've swallowed the line that if you live beyond your means and pile up the debt then the economy will keep growing forever and we'll all be fine. Instead, we got the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
But something is happening in Britain. People are waking up and asking their own questions. They are beginning to make up their own minds about who they are and what they want. Like glimpses of sun between the clouds, when I read between the lines I see Britishness coming back. That sense of honesty, justice and fair-play. That sense of compassion for the less fortunate. That sense of moral obligation to step in and help, to stand for what's right and to sacrifice if need be to see truth win out in the end. More than anywhere else I see this in the young, and that gives me hope.
Yes, we still have criminals and idiots (some on the streets and some in high office). We still have news reports of hideous crimes and acts of the grossest evil. But behind it all, if you have the eyes to see, things are changing for the better. We're rediscovering our spirituality. We're rediscovering our own inherent value and dignity. We're rediscovering who we are.
You might not be able to see it yet, but I do. Britain is changing. Revival is coming, people, and we need to get ready to embrace it.
Hang on a minute - I thought this was a democracy, and the people just spoke.
It was an overwhelming and decisive 'No' vote and that surely should settle the matter once and for all. Or are we still back in the bad old days of the European referendums where more than once they've simply rerun the vote because they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time? How inconsiderate of the people to cause problems for their politicians.
Not this time, though. That's it guys, game over. Nobody wanted it. Let it go - and let's get on with more important things.
Why do I say that? Because the outcome of this referendum reveals two things. First, that quite a number of our politicians are still hopelessly out of touch with the will and desires of the people they say they represent. But we already knew that.
Secondly however the referendum shows us something else.
It shows us that the people spoke. They didn't do what the politicans told them to do. They made their own minds up. They saw through the arguments of the experts and leaders who pushed them into a referendum they didn't want, and they confounded them.
If you look at the trends in our society I believe we're going to see this more and more. This isn't like the days of old. This is the internet generation, the day of wikileaks revelations, of bloggers saying what the establishment won't, and of rebels tweeting to the world things their governments desperately want to suppress. More and more people now are thinking for themselves, gathering their own information and coming to their own conclusions. The establishment don't like this very much but it's too late, the genie is out of the bottle and no amount of frenzied cork-pushing is going to set things back to the nice, safe, predictable way they were before.
What we've just seen in the UK is, I believe, a microcosm of this. For the last ten years successive governments have been wringing their hands at the loss of the British identity. "What is Britishness?" they cried. "Where did it go? When did we lose it? How can we bring it back?" Well guess what boys, it's been a long dark night but I think there's a glow on the horizon.
For the last two and a half generations we've lost our way. Blown by every wind of thought and political doctrine we've put up with every kind of social experimentation. We've seen liberalism fail. We've tried the science-will-solve-all-your-problems 'White Heat of Technology'. That was supposed to give us a three-day working week and the paperless office, remember? We've tried liberal parenting and that gave us drink-fuelled thuggery and the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. We've tried secular humanism and it cost us our soul. We've tried immigration, importing others to do the lowly jobs Britons didn't want. They did them, and did them so well that we now bemoan their prosperity and success. We've tried both left-wing and right-wing economic and political dogma, both promising utopian success but leaving a twisted legacy of chaos. We've messed with the schools and the health service so many times we've forgotten what they are for. We've built tower blocks and torn them down again because they don't work. And most recently we've swallowed the line that if you live beyond your means and pile up the debt then the economy will keep growing forever and we'll all be fine. Instead, we got the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
But something is happening in Britain. People are waking up and asking their own questions. They are beginning to make up their own minds about who they are and what they want. Like glimpses of sun between the clouds, when I read between the lines I see Britishness coming back. That sense of honesty, justice and fair-play. That sense of compassion for the less fortunate. That sense of moral obligation to step in and help, to stand for what's right and to sacrifice if need be to see truth win out in the end. More than anywhere else I see this in the young, and that gives me hope.
Yes, we still have criminals and idiots (some on the streets and some in high office). We still have news reports of hideous crimes and acts of the grossest evil. But behind it all, if you have the eyes to see, things are changing for the better. We're rediscovering our spirituality. We're rediscovering our own inherent value and dignity. We're rediscovering who we are.
You might not be able to see it yet, but I do. Britain is changing. Revival is coming, people, and we need to get ready to embrace it.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
What's the Alternative?
In case you haven't heard (and apologies to my American readers), there is a referendum on 5th May to decide whether or not to change the UK voting system to the Alternative Vote (AV). I've been asking friends and acquaintances what they think and I'm surprised at how few understand what the vote is really about and what's at stake.
Which means, of course, that it's time for a post.
The first problem is that the referendum is happening at the same time as several other votes which seems to be confusing people. One person I spoke to thought the polling card they received was "only for the local council and I can't be bothered with that."
Not true - and when I explained there was also a referendum of national importance on the same day it was the first time they'd heard about it. Somehow this referendum hasn't captured public attention, and that's worrying because the issue at stake affects all of us. This is a crucial vote - if the outcome is 'Yes' then all future elections will use the Alternative Vote and our current system will be tossed into the dustbin of history. And if the result is 'No' then, to quote one commentator, "that will finish voting reform for a generation".
What difference will this make to us? What is the Alternative Vote? Who is promoting it, and why?
If you don't know, read on.
Our current system is 'first past the post' and the name describes it well. Every voter has one vote and can vote for just one candidate - the one they think most worthy of their support. All the votes get counted up and the candidate with the most votes wins.
As the eponymous Meerkat would say, "Simples!"
Critics of the system, however, say that if you vote for a minority candidate your vote is effectively wasted; since your candidate can never win, your voice never gets heard. And when you multipy that up across all the seats in the country, the party that 'wins' might do so without the support of the genuine majority of all those who voted. There was plenty of argument on those lines after the last election gave us the first hung parliament since 1974. (Some, of course, think parliament ought to be hung, particularly after the expenses crisis, but that's another story).
By contrast, under the Alternative Vote you don't select one candidate but rank all the candidates in order of preference, your favourite gets '1', your second choice '2' and so on. If the top candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast, they win and that's the end of it. If they don't, the funny business starts. Since the top candidate got less than 50%, the lowest-scoring candidate is eliminated (since they clearly can't win), and the votes of those who ranked that candidate first get re-examined. The second-place choices of all those people then get allocated to the remaining candidates to see if that puts any of them up to 50%. If it does, that candidate wins. If it doesn't, then the votes for the next lowest candidate get reallocated and so on until somebody wins.
The Yes campaign say that makes AV fairer and reduces the number of safe seats by forcing candidates to appeal to a wider cross-section of the voters than just their traditional core support. They also say the AV removes the need for tactical voting by freeing voters to honestly express their preferences in the knowledge their vote will never be wasted.
I have several problems with this.
Firstly, it's too complex. Anyone can put an 'X' beside the candidate of their choice, but having to number candidates in order of preference will be too off-putting for some. Must I number them all? Can't I just choose one? Can I pick my first, second and third and leave the others blank? Or should I just give up altogether and not bother? Actually, you can choose just one - but only if you mark the candidate with a '1'. If you put an 'X', your vote won't be counted.
What a mess.
Secondly, since I live in a 'safe' seat where the candidate of my choice never stands a chance, my vote under this new system is almost certain to help elect someone who is only my second, or even third, choice. How wonderful is that? At least under the current system my vote, although 'wasted', genuinely expresses my preference. Under AV it gets redirected to elect someone I rated only second best, and yet they have the gall to tell me that's better. I'm afraid I'm with David Cameron on this one: "When it comes to our democracy, Britain shouldn't have to settle for anyone's second choice." (Vote referendum: Clegg v Cameron, by Brian Wheeler, BBC News, 18 February 2011).
And thirdly, introducing AV will clearly benefit the smaller parties - which is why you'll find most of them in favour of it. The Liberal Democrats have never yet managed to win a majority under the current system or even come close, so from many elections across many years it's clear that their policies - voting reform included - simply haven't been attractive enough to the British people. Yet due to an accident of fate here they are, and their prize for getting a share in government is the chance to drink from their personal holy grail - to change the voting system to one that favours them more in the future. Now why, do you suppose, they might want to do that? Is it to reform democracy and make things fairer for the voter? Is it to usher in a nobler age of "new politics"? No, I fear it's actually old politics at it's cynically-motivated worst - politicians once again furthering their own interests and using the electorate to do it. Sorry, my Right Honourable friends, but in this case I strongly suspect the emperor has no clothes...
The key question, though, is what do you think? And will you turn out on May 5th to express that opinion? You ought to - it's your vote, after all, and that's what this referendum is all about.
Which means, of course, that it's time for a post.
The first problem is that the referendum is happening at the same time as several other votes which seems to be confusing people. One person I spoke to thought the polling card they received was "only for the local council and I can't be bothered with that."
Not true - and when I explained there was also a referendum of national importance on the same day it was the first time they'd heard about it. Somehow this referendum hasn't captured public attention, and that's worrying because the issue at stake affects all of us. This is a crucial vote - if the outcome is 'Yes' then all future elections will use the Alternative Vote and our current system will be tossed into the dustbin of history. And if the result is 'No' then, to quote one commentator, "that will finish voting reform for a generation".
What difference will this make to us? What is the Alternative Vote? Who is promoting it, and why?
If you don't know, read on.
Our current system is 'first past the post' and the name describes it well. Every voter has one vote and can vote for just one candidate - the one they think most worthy of their support. All the votes get counted up and the candidate with the most votes wins.
As the eponymous Meerkat would say, "Simples!"
Critics of the system, however, say that if you vote for a minority candidate your vote is effectively wasted; since your candidate can never win, your voice never gets heard. And when you multipy that up across all the seats in the country, the party that 'wins' might do so without the support of the genuine majority of all those who voted. There was plenty of argument on those lines after the last election gave us the first hung parliament since 1974. (Some, of course, think parliament ought to be hung, particularly after the expenses crisis, but that's another story).
By contrast, under the Alternative Vote you don't select one candidate but rank all the candidates in order of preference, your favourite gets '1', your second choice '2' and so on. If the top candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast, they win and that's the end of it. If they don't, the funny business starts. Since the top candidate got less than 50%, the lowest-scoring candidate is eliminated (since they clearly can't win), and the votes of those who ranked that candidate first get re-examined. The second-place choices of all those people then get allocated to the remaining candidates to see if that puts any of them up to 50%. If it does, that candidate wins. If it doesn't, then the votes for the next lowest candidate get reallocated and so on until somebody wins.
The Yes campaign say that makes AV fairer and reduces the number of safe seats by forcing candidates to appeal to a wider cross-section of the voters than just their traditional core support. They also say the AV removes the need for tactical voting by freeing voters to honestly express their preferences in the knowledge their vote will never be wasted.
I have several problems with this.
Firstly, it's too complex. Anyone can put an 'X' beside the candidate of their choice, but having to number candidates in order of preference will be too off-putting for some. Must I number them all? Can't I just choose one? Can I pick my first, second and third and leave the others blank? Or should I just give up altogether and not bother? Actually, you can choose just one - but only if you mark the candidate with a '1'. If you put an 'X', your vote won't be counted.
What a mess.
Secondly, since I live in a 'safe' seat where the candidate of my choice never stands a chance, my vote under this new system is almost certain to help elect someone who is only my second, or even third, choice. How wonderful is that? At least under the current system my vote, although 'wasted', genuinely expresses my preference. Under AV it gets redirected to elect someone I rated only second best, and yet they have the gall to tell me that's better. I'm afraid I'm with David Cameron on this one: "When it comes to our democracy, Britain shouldn't have to settle for anyone's second choice." (Vote referendum: Clegg v Cameron, by Brian Wheeler, BBC News, 18 February 2011).
And thirdly, introducing AV will clearly benefit the smaller parties - which is why you'll find most of them in favour of it. The Liberal Democrats have never yet managed to win a majority under the current system or even come close, so from many elections across many years it's clear that their policies - voting reform included - simply haven't been attractive enough to the British people. Yet due to an accident of fate here they are, and their prize for getting a share in government is the chance to drink from their personal holy grail - to change the voting system to one that favours them more in the future. Now why, do you suppose, they might want to do that? Is it to reform democracy and make things fairer for the voter? Is it to usher in a nobler age of "new politics"? No, I fear it's actually old politics at it's cynically-motivated worst - politicians once again furthering their own interests and using the electorate to do it. Sorry, my Right Honourable friends, but in this case I strongly suspect the emperor has no clothes...
The key question, though, is what do you think? And will you turn out on May 5th to express that opinion? You ought to - it's your vote, after all, and that's what this referendum is all about.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Mind Your Language
While leafing through a magazine the other week I came across a full-page advertisement for an upcoming film ('movie' to my American readers) which had a notice down in the bottom right-hand corner stating that the film contained "Strong Language".
This, of course, got me thinking. They were referring to swearing of course, the kind of language you might want to avoid in polite company, but why is such language described as "strong"? Strength normally suggests potency, effectiveness, the ability to influence, the posession of power being of renown. And presumably, therefore, if profanity is "strong" then other non-profane utterances are somehow by comparison weak, ineffective and of lesser use.
Strength also carries with it the idea of renown, and by extension honour, praise, respect, admiration and being considered of worth and value. (Think about it - have you recently praise or admired someone for their weakness? It's the strong that we talk about and respect.) Does this mean, then that "strong" language is somehow better, more praiseworthy and of innately greater value than other forms of speech? We certainly seem to be hearing more and more of it; our cinema and TV screens are awash with graphic expletives as producers and directors seek to grab the attention of a bored and fickle public by outdoing everything that went before. You can barely walk down the street now without encountering sewer-mouthed idiots F'ing and cursing away without any consideration or regard for the child by your side or the old lady two steps behind you.
Strong language may be everywhere, and so ingrained in our culture that it has almost become part of us, but universal popularity doesn't make something right and just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's healthy. If you doubt this, I offer you the following suggestion: eat excrement - after all, ten million flies can't be wrong.
No, rather than being "strong" this outpouring of verbal violence is weakening our language. Many people seem to have lost the ability to express themselves adequately using just normal words. They have become incapable of expressing strong emotion, deeply held conviction or even of simply arguing a point without swearing. And yet, at the same time, those "strong" words have now become so commonplace that they themselves have lost their meaning. I come across people on a daily basis who drop the F-word into almost every sentence without it adding anything to what they are saying. It's as if that word has become something they say just because they ought to, a verbal full-stop or comma perhaps.
It is, however, very possible to communicate both clearly and powerfully without resorting to strong language. When I was at school we had an English teacher named Mr Gould. An almost-bald giant of a man, he always came to school in a suit and he never, ever swore. Yet he told errant pupils in no uncertain terms exactly what he thought of them and every one of his classes was attentive and calm. I remember clearly one lesson in which some lad was whispering to his friend at the back. Mr Gould straightened himself up in his chair, placed his big hands palm-down on his desk, fixed the young man with one of his famous hard stares and thundered, "Silence, boy, or I will cleave your brains apart with an axe!" In today's misguided age Mr Gould would probably be suspended for such threats, but we all thought he was brilliant and he was by far the most popular teacher in the school.
And what about that other linguistic traversty, "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics"? Well excuse me, but aren't all lyrics meant to be explicit? What exactly would the point be of lyrics that did not explicitly convey the emotion or meaning of a song? Again, we have a generation falling into the trap of feeling they cannot adeqautely express themselves without filling their lyrics with F-rated profanities and thinking they are really cool for doing so. I beg to differ: if you want explicit lyrics try listening to the the old hymn Jerusalem by Willam Blake. Or if that's too old for you then perhaps the song Eleanor Rigby by Paul McCartney, Heavenly Homes by Bill Nelson or Money by Pink Floyd. You'll find there a far more eloquent and emotionally charged experience that you'll ever get from some foul-mouthed barely educated bling-toting wannabee rap star with his hat on backwards.
Friends, it is time for us to rise from this lazy cess-pit of linguistic filth and reclaim the language we once knew how to use. As Ephesians 4:29 says, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."
Let me know how you get on.
This, of course, got me thinking. They were referring to swearing of course, the kind of language you might want to avoid in polite company, but why is such language described as "strong"? Strength normally suggests potency, effectiveness, the ability to influence, the posession of power being of renown. And presumably, therefore, if profanity is "strong" then other non-profane utterances are somehow by comparison weak, ineffective and of lesser use.
Strength also carries with it the idea of renown, and by extension honour, praise, respect, admiration and being considered of worth and value. (Think about it - have you recently praise or admired someone for their weakness? It's the strong that we talk about and respect.) Does this mean, then that "strong" language is somehow better, more praiseworthy and of innately greater value than other forms of speech? We certainly seem to be hearing more and more of it; our cinema and TV screens are awash with graphic expletives as producers and directors seek to grab the attention of a bored and fickle public by outdoing everything that went before. You can barely walk down the street now without encountering sewer-mouthed idiots F'ing and cursing away without any consideration or regard for the child by your side or the old lady two steps behind you.
Strong language may be everywhere, and so ingrained in our culture that it has almost become part of us, but universal popularity doesn't make something right and just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's healthy. If you doubt this, I offer you the following suggestion: eat excrement - after all, ten million flies can't be wrong.
No, rather than being "strong" this outpouring of verbal violence is weakening our language. Many people seem to have lost the ability to express themselves adequately using just normal words. They have become incapable of expressing strong emotion, deeply held conviction or even of simply arguing a point without swearing. And yet, at the same time, those "strong" words have now become so commonplace that they themselves have lost their meaning. I come across people on a daily basis who drop the F-word into almost every sentence without it adding anything to what they are saying. It's as if that word has become something they say just because they ought to, a verbal full-stop or comma perhaps.
It is, however, very possible to communicate both clearly and powerfully without resorting to strong language. When I was at school we had an English teacher named Mr Gould. An almost-bald giant of a man, he always came to school in a suit and he never, ever swore. Yet he told errant pupils in no uncertain terms exactly what he thought of them and every one of his classes was attentive and calm. I remember clearly one lesson in which some lad was whispering to his friend at the back. Mr Gould straightened himself up in his chair, placed his big hands palm-down on his desk, fixed the young man with one of his famous hard stares and thundered, "Silence, boy, or I will cleave your brains apart with an axe!" In today's misguided age Mr Gould would probably be suspended for such threats, but we all thought he was brilliant and he was by far the most popular teacher in the school.
And what about that other linguistic traversty, "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics"? Well excuse me, but aren't all lyrics meant to be explicit? What exactly would the point be of lyrics that did not explicitly convey the emotion or meaning of a song? Again, we have a generation falling into the trap of feeling they cannot adeqautely express themselves without filling their lyrics with F-rated profanities and thinking they are really cool for doing so. I beg to differ: if you want explicit lyrics try listening to the the old hymn Jerusalem by Willam Blake. Or if that's too old for you then perhaps the song Eleanor Rigby by Paul McCartney, Heavenly Homes by Bill Nelson or Money by Pink Floyd. You'll find there a far more eloquent and emotionally charged experience that you'll ever get from some foul-mouthed barely educated bling-toting wannabee rap star with his hat on backwards.
Friends, it is time for us to rise from this lazy cess-pit of linguistic filth and reclaim the language we once knew how to use. As Ephesians 4:29 says, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."
Let me know how you get on.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
A Matter of Policy
Have you been following the televised leader's debates?
After the first debate the opinion polls showed a surge of support for the Liberal Democrats following a better-than-expected performance from Nick Clegg, and some of the viewers and listeners comments were remarkable.
"I thought Nick Clegg was wonderful", one lady enthused, "and I've decided I'm going to vote for him now".
In other words, she was going to vote not for the Liberal Democrats but for Nick Clegg; for the personality not the policies, for the man and not for the manifesto.
I'm not bashing Mr Clegg or the Lib Dem's but I am saying that it's a mistake to be beguiled by the way a politician presents himself in the media and let that sway your allegiance. What matters, surely, is not the cut of their suit, the earnestness of their face or the quality of their smile but the policies they espouse and will pursue if they get voted in.
Another interesting bit of coverage has been the Election Call on Radio four, where listeners could phone in and put their question direct to party leaders on-air. I've listened to a few of these and noticed a recurring trend - many of the callers were unashamedly shallow, shortsighted and selfish.
One man I heard bashed David Cameron over his proposal to give a tax rebate to married couples. "That's unfair!" he raged. "My partner and I have been together thirteen years; why won't you give me a tax break? How come we can have money if we get married but won't get it if we're not?" Mr Cameron's answer, that marriage deserved to be recognised and supported, fell on deaf ears. All the man was concerned about was whether he could get a few quid or not, and he couldn't see further than that.
This is a critical election, and we need to take the long view. Of course we will be concerned for the immediate wellbeing of ourselves and our family, but we should also consider the impact of our chosen party's policies on our wider society. We slammed the bankers for placing short-term self-interest over the world's wider good - we need to be careful not to do the same.
My plea to you, then, is to make the effort to consider the policies of the parties. What will they do on Europe? Would they take us into the Euro or out of the union altogether? What about defence? What about ID Cards? What about the economy and repaying our immense deficit? Where do they stand on issues of morality? Would they clean up politics or 'reform' the system for their own benefit? What is their attitude to the environment? What about freedom of thought, speech and religion? These are important questions.
It might also be instructive to check not what the candidates say they will do, but what they and their colleagues have actually done. If you're thinking of re-electing a serving MP, try entering "name-of-MPvoting record" into your favourite search engine. Or if you're thinking of voting for the other side, check out the record of some of the MPs they already have. Actions, after all, speak louder than words - a fact worth remembering in the light of the recent expenses scandal, perhaps?
So let's choose our next government not on a whim, or on the basis of a televised debate, but with as much care as we'd take if were about to buy a costly TV or a car. We'd check the specifications, read the reviews, compare the options and make sure that when we finally handed over our cash we were getting value for money. Anyone who didn't do that we'd consider a fool, yet how many of us will sign away the next five years of our future without a second thought, or maybe not even bother to vote at all?
I believe May 6th will be a defining moment. We all, together, need to take it seriously and make sure we get it right.
After the first debate the opinion polls showed a surge of support for the Liberal Democrats following a better-than-expected performance from Nick Clegg, and some of the viewers and listeners comments were remarkable.
"I thought Nick Clegg was wonderful", one lady enthused, "and I've decided I'm going to vote for him now".
In other words, she was going to vote not for the Liberal Democrats but for Nick Clegg; for the personality not the policies, for the man and not for the manifesto.
I'm not bashing Mr Clegg or the Lib Dem's but I am saying that it's a mistake to be beguiled by the way a politician presents himself in the media and let that sway your allegiance. What matters, surely, is not the cut of their suit, the earnestness of their face or the quality of their smile but the policies they espouse and will pursue if they get voted in.
Another interesting bit of coverage has been the Election Call on Radio four, where listeners could phone in and put their question direct to party leaders on-air. I've listened to a few of these and noticed a recurring trend - many of the callers were unashamedly shallow, shortsighted and selfish.
One man I heard bashed David Cameron over his proposal to give a tax rebate to married couples. "That's unfair!" he raged. "My partner and I have been together thirteen years; why won't you give me a tax break? How come we can have money if we get married but won't get it if we're not?" Mr Cameron's answer, that marriage deserved to be recognised and supported, fell on deaf ears. All the man was concerned about was whether he could get a few quid or not, and he couldn't see further than that.
This is a critical election, and we need to take the long view. Of course we will be concerned for the immediate wellbeing of ourselves and our family, but we should also consider the impact of our chosen party's policies on our wider society. We slammed the bankers for placing short-term self-interest over the world's wider good - we need to be careful not to do the same.
My plea to you, then, is to make the effort to consider the policies of the parties. What will they do on Europe? Would they take us into the Euro or out of the union altogether? What about defence? What about ID Cards? What about the economy and repaying our immense deficit? Where do they stand on issues of morality? Would they clean up politics or 'reform' the system for their own benefit? What is their attitude to the environment? What about freedom of thought, speech and religion? These are important questions.
It might also be instructive to check not what the candidates say they will do, but what they and their colleagues have actually done. If you're thinking of re-electing a serving MP, try entering "name-of-MP
So let's choose our next government not on a whim, or on the basis of a televised debate, but with as much care as we'd take if were about to buy a costly TV or a car. We'd check the specifications, read the reviews, compare the options and make sure that when we finally handed over our cash we were getting value for money. Anyone who didn't do that we'd consider a fool, yet how many of us will sign away the next five years of our future without a second thought, or maybe not even bother to vote at all?
I believe May 6th will be a defining moment. We all, together, need to take it seriously and make sure we get it right.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Vote!
A few people have complained that I haven't posted in a while. They're right, of course, but I have a good excuse. There's been a huge project on at work so I've been working almost every weekend on top of all the other things I do, and on the occasions I did manage to carve out a little time for myself I spent it recovering instead of blogging.
However there are some things important enough to bring even the most reluctant out of retirement, and one of them has just occurred. Gordon Brown has announced a general election to be held on May 6th.
Now this isn't a political blog and I won't presume to tell you how you should vote, but I am very concerned that you do.
You see, I've been hearing a worrying number of people recently saying they "don't think they will bother", and though I'm a mild-mannered man I'm afraid that sort of sentiment makes me indignant to the point of shouting.
Our vote, the privilege we have to influence the way our country is run and by whom, is one of the most precious things we posess. Yes, they might be all as bad as eachother. And no, your vote might not change the outcome, particularly if your allegiance is to a minority party, but you should thank God with all your heart that you have the freedom to cast it.
Thank God you live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship or a one-party state with an all-seeing secret police and a nice network of labour camps for those who don't agree. Some people don't have the opportunity you view as such a light thing. What would they say to your apathy?
'Use it, or lose it' springs to mind.
Think I'm being extreme? Do you not feel a debt to the dead of two world wars who fell amid unthinkable, inhuman carnage so you could have the privilege you now treat with such indifference? If you are a woman, do the heroic struggles of the suffragettes mean nothing to you? Or the sacrifices of so many who have fought and died to buy your freedom down through the ages?
Shame on us if we have become so self-absorbed as a society and individuals that we "can't be bothered" any more. Shame on us if these things no longer move us. Shame on us if through our apathy and indifference we allow an unsavoury candidate or government to take office and then go whining about the consequences. If we can't be bothered to vote, we get the leaders we deserve.
Make the effort, then. Turn off the TV, log off Facebook for half an hour, leave Twitter for the birds, let the grass grow and the carpet stay dirty. Don't even read my blog. Take your children with you to the polling station and explain to them what you're doing and just how important it is. Get out there on May 6th and, when you hold that ballot in your hand, reflect for a moment and give thanks.
Then cast your vote with gratitude and pride, but don't - whatever you do - tell me that you "can't be bothered".
However there are some things important enough to bring even the most reluctant out of retirement, and one of them has just occurred. Gordon Brown has announced a general election to be held on May 6th.
Now this isn't a political blog and I won't presume to tell you how you should vote, but I am very concerned that you do.
You see, I've been hearing a worrying number of people recently saying they "don't think they will bother", and though I'm a mild-mannered man I'm afraid that sort of sentiment makes me indignant to the point of shouting.
Our vote, the privilege we have to influence the way our country is run and by whom, is one of the most precious things we posess. Yes, they might be all as bad as eachother. And no, your vote might not change the outcome, particularly if your allegiance is to a minority party, but you should thank God with all your heart that you have the freedom to cast it.
Thank God you live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship or a one-party state with an all-seeing secret police and a nice network of labour camps for those who don't agree. Some people don't have the opportunity you view as such a light thing. What would they say to your apathy?
'Use it, or lose it' springs to mind.
Think I'm being extreme? Do you not feel a debt to the dead of two world wars who fell amid unthinkable, inhuman carnage so you could have the privilege you now treat with such indifference? If you are a woman, do the heroic struggles of the suffragettes mean nothing to you? Or the sacrifices of so many who have fought and died to buy your freedom down through the ages?
Shame on us if we have become so self-absorbed as a society and individuals that we "can't be bothered" any more. Shame on us if these things no longer move us. Shame on us if through our apathy and indifference we allow an unsavoury candidate or government to take office and then go whining about the consequences. If we can't be bothered to vote, we get the leaders we deserve.
Make the effort, then. Turn off the TV, log off Facebook for half an hour, leave Twitter for the birds, let the grass grow and the carpet stay dirty. Don't even read my blog. Take your children with you to the polling station and explain to them what you're doing and just how important it is. Get out there on May 6th and, when you hold that ballot in your hand, reflect for a moment and give thanks.
Then cast your vote with gratitude and pride, but don't - whatever you do - tell me that you "can't be bothered".
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Have Your Say?
So, Gordon Brown is suddenly anxious to make sure that we, the great British people, have the chance of a referendum on his proposed changes to the voting system.
That's nice.
Pity about all the other critical referenda that he and his Government carefully avoided giving us. There's the Lisbon Treaty (in violation of a manifesto promise), the war in Iraq, the identity card proposals and the question of whether expense-fiddling MPs should be thrown into the town stocks and pelted with rotting fruit to name just a few.
Let's face it - none of the current crop of politicians want to risk a possible public veto. They'd rather hide behind their election mandate and implement their ideology for five years regardless of what anybody thinks.
Yes, our political system does need to change. But not by tinkering with it so a bunch of ploiticians who know they're doomed can climb back onto the gravy train that much sooner. The change we really need is for politicians of all colours to realise their high office is a position of accountability and trust and that they are there not to build a career or make money but to serve those that elected them.
That's nice.
Pity about all the other critical referenda that he and his Government carefully avoided giving us. There's the Lisbon Treaty (in violation of a manifesto promise), the war in Iraq, the identity card proposals and the question of whether expense-fiddling MPs should be thrown into the town stocks and pelted with rotting fruit to name just a few.
Let's face it - none of the current crop of politicians want to risk a possible public veto. They'd rather hide behind their election mandate and implement their ideology for five years regardless of what anybody thinks.
Yes, our political system does need to change. But not by tinkering with it so a bunch of ploiticians who know they're doomed can climb back onto the gravy train that much sooner. The change we really need is for politicians of all colours to realise their high office is a position of accountability and trust and that they are there not to build a career or make money but to serve those that elected them.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Big Brother
Have you seen the Big Brother house? Walls wreathed in flame, skulls, and a kitchen based around a mortuary slab with paintwork described as 'autopsy green', all to express that 'hell lies in others'.
And they call this reality television.
Pardon me, but exactly whose reality is this supposed to be representing? The zero point zero one percent of the population who regularly eat live babies for breakfast and have an unhealthy interest in the works of Aleister Crowley? Since the promoters of this vacuous tripe cannot by any means claim to be representing reality, the more worrying possibility is that in their quest to make money they end up influencing it.
What sort of society have we degenerated into when the most interesting thing we can think of is to watch a bunch of wannabee minor celebrities plunged into a contrived situation under carefully designed psychological pressure just so we can see who gropes who? When we laugh like horses as they posture and scheme to avoid eviction? Have we really toiled through the long night of five thousand years of social, intellectual and moral progress just for this?
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner this sort of stuff disappears from our screens the better.
And they call this reality television.
Pardon me, but exactly whose reality is this supposed to be representing? The zero point zero one percent of the population who regularly eat live babies for breakfast and have an unhealthy interest in the works of Aleister Crowley? Since the promoters of this vacuous tripe cannot by any means claim to be representing reality, the more worrying possibility is that in their quest to make money they end up influencing it.
What sort of society have we degenerated into when the most interesting thing we can think of is to watch a bunch of wannabee minor celebrities plunged into a contrived situation under carefully designed psychological pressure just so we can see who gropes who? When we laugh like horses as they posture and scheme to avoid eviction? Have we really toiled through the long night of five thousand years of social, intellectual and moral progress just for this?
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner this sort of stuff disappears from our screens the better.
Monday, 9 November 2009
Wanted - Energetic Men
"We love upright, energetic men. Pull them this way, and then that way, and the other, and they only bend, but never break. Trip them down, and in a trice they are on their feet. Bury them in the mud, and in an hour they will be out and bright. They are not ever yawning away existence, or walking about the world as if they had come into it with only half their soul; you cannot keep them down; you cannot destroy them. But for these the world would soon degenerate. They are the salt of the earth. Who but they start any noble project? They build our cities and rear our manufactories; they whiten the ocean with their sails, and they blacken the heavens with the smoke of their steam-vessels and furnace fires; they draw treasures from the deep mine; they plow the rich earth. Blessings on them! Look to them, young men, and take courage; imitate their example; catch the spirit of their energy and enterprise, and you will deserve, and no doubt command, success."
Readings for Young Men, Merchants, and Men of Business, 1866 - from www.artofmanliness.com
Readings for Young Men, Merchants, and Men of Business, 1866 - from www.artofmanliness.com
Friday, 7 August 2009
U-Turns
Those of us in the UK are familiar with U-turns. Our government seems to be making them with ever increasing frequency (consider Joanna Lumley's recent victory over Gurkha's rights for example) and in these troubled times the climbdown seems set to become a national institution. We might even declare a new public holiday, "National U-Turn Day", when politicians could release all their embarrasing news safe in the knowledge that everybody else is away scoffing burgers at the beach.
A U-turn, by definition, is a fundamental change of direction. You are travelling in one direction but abandon it and select another diametrically opposed to the course you originally followed. You abandon your original goal and redirect your efforts to reach another.
We must conclude, therefore, that you realised that your original course was somehow inappropriate and your original destination unworthy of further pursuit. Even though you thought it right, you now see it was wrong and you've abandoned it to seek a better way. However you look at it, that's a fairly profound change of outlook, perception and opinion.
Imagine my shock, then, to discover such a U-turn right under my very nose. An abandoned government policy? No, I see those regularly but I would never have predicted this - the Philippic Pastor is now on Twitter!
Come on Tom, I think you owe us an explanation. You always said Twitter was for the birds but I've never known you make a decision lightly so there has to be more to this than simply following the crowd. Why the change of heart?
A U-turn, by definition, is a fundamental change of direction. You are travelling in one direction but abandon it and select another diametrically opposed to the course you originally followed. You abandon your original goal and redirect your efforts to reach another.
We must conclude, therefore, that you realised that your original course was somehow inappropriate and your original destination unworthy of further pursuit. Even though you thought it right, you now see it was wrong and you've abandoned it to seek a better way. However you look at it, that's a fairly profound change of outlook, perception and opinion.
Imagine my shock, then, to discover such a U-turn right under my very nose. An abandoned government policy? No, I see those regularly but I would never have predicted this - the Philippic Pastor is now on Twitter!
Come on Tom, I think you owe us an explanation. You always said Twitter was for the birds but I've never known you make a decision lightly so there has to be more to this than simply following the crowd. Why the change of heart?
Friday, 8 May 2009
An Expensive Business
More revelations have emerged today about MP's expenses. The Daily Telegraph has published detailed accounts of the expenses claims of some of our top politicians with the promise of more to come, and what we already have makes interesting reading.
Several senior MPs are on record as having claimed twice for the same item or having claimed the full price for their Council Tax from which they then obtained a substantial rebate at the taxpayer's expense. Apparently these were 'mistakes' that were put right by the individuals concerned, but it makes me wonder how people we trust to manage billions of pounds of public money, our national security and our economic and social well-being can't handle such a simple matter as their own expenses claim.
It's also interesting that the mistakes were only corrected recently, which of course has nothing whatever to do with the current upsurge in public scrutiny. Other revelations include politicians switching homes so they could claim more in renovation expenses and furnishing grants. One well-known MP is said to have claimed on three different properties in one year and spent £5000 of public money on furnishings in just three months. And, of course, we can't fail to remember the outcry over the MP that claimed for two pornographic films and a new bath plug.
The most shocking thing is that when challenged over these excesses the MPs involved invariably respond "I have done nothing wrong; I haven't broken any of the rules". Perhaps not, but what about the rule of being seen to act with integrity and honesty while in a position of privilege and trust? It astounds me that our politicians are now wringing their hands over why the public has so little faith in them and wondering why they are "failing to get their message across."
Hmm. I can think of a couple of reasons.
Several senior MPs are on record as having claimed twice for the same item or having claimed the full price for their Council Tax from which they then obtained a substantial rebate at the taxpayer's expense. Apparently these were 'mistakes' that were put right by the individuals concerned, but it makes me wonder how people we trust to manage billions of pounds of public money, our national security and our economic and social well-being can't handle such a simple matter as their own expenses claim.
It's also interesting that the mistakes were only corrected recently, which of course has nothing whatever to do with the current upsurge in public scrutiny. Other revelations include politicians switching homes so they could claim more in renovation expenses and furnishing grants. One well-known MP is said to have claimed on three different properties in one year and spent £5000 of public money on furnishings in just three months. And, of course, we can't fail to remember the outcry over the MP that claimed for two pornographic films and a new bath plug.
The most shocking thing is that when challenged over these excesses the MPs involved invariably respond "I have done nothing wrong; I haven't broken any of the rules". Perhaps not, but what about the rule of being seen to act with integrity and honesty while in a position of privilege and trust? It astounds me that our politicians are now wringing their hands over why the public has so little faith in them and wondering why they are "failing to get their message across."
Hmm. I can think of a couple of reasons.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
The Silent Minority
One thing that seems to characterise today's society is the abundance of groups determined to impose their agenda on everyone else. Without really pausing for thought I could name several, all of which demand quite agressively that I accomodate their beliefs and uphold their practices and yet become strangely upset if I in turn ask that they respect mine.
One thing that particularly troubles me in all this is what I call the terrorist paradox. Here in the UK we're no stranger to terrorism having lived with the IRA for half a generation, and yet we have a settlement today in which former enemies have come together to form a power-sharing government. That's good, and I'm glad the peace finally came. It came because people on both sides put aside their guns and rhetoric to talk; both the government and the terrorists meeting on middle ground and moving forward together for peace. And what's interesting is the way in which these leaders have now risen up with one voice to condemn the recent murders by the 'Real IRA' - acts that some of them supported and even committed before they became politicians. Again, I'm glad they spoke out; but I worry that in the wider context of our society we're setting a pattern here.
It seems that in today's world if you live quietly as a reasonable, law-abiding citizen, respecting the rights of others and never forcing your agenda on your fellow man then your voice is ignored by a political system that has more pressing things to think about. But if you step over the line and make noise, if you break the law and throw bricks at Policemen, if you kill and maim innocent bystanders, damage property and commit that most British of crimes, "disturbing the peace", then after the outrage and condemnation have run their course someone will eventually decide to sit down and talk with you. Make yourself a thorn in society's side and sooner or later your demands will be heard. And not just heard; in the fulness of time you'll probably be brought in from the cold and given a leadership role.
We live in a world where only the loud are listened to; and there are many who understand this and are prepared to be as loud as it takes. It's a shame our governments and leaders can't find the time to equally engage the quiet. I don't see anyone offering to bring the young, carers, refugees, ordinary people of quiet and dignified faith, single parents, the elderly or the homeless into the political establishment; rather, I see them increasingly marginalised. We face big problems today, and there are many who have much to contribute but because they either have no voice or have a moral compass that prevents them from stamping on others, they are ignored.
There are rumours that Obama might be about to talk to the Taliban. If he does then it's further evidence, should more be needed, that in today's warped politics there are now two routes into public office: the ballot and the bomb.
One thing that particularly troubles me in all this is what I call the terrorist paradox. Here in the UK we're no stranger to terrorism having lived with the IRA for half a generation, and yet we have a settlement today in which former enemies have come together to form a power-sharing government. That's good, and I'm glad the peace finally came. It came because people on both sides put aside their guns and rhetoric to talk; both the government and the terrorists meeting on middle ground and moving forward together for peace. And what's interesting is the way in which these leaders have now risen up with one voice to condemn the recent murders by the 'Real IRA' - acts that some of them supported and even committed before they became politicians. Again, I'm glad they spoke out; but I worry that in the wider context of our society we're setting a pattern here.
It seems that in today's world if you live quietly as a reasonable, law-abiding citizen, respecting the rights of others and never forcing your agenda on your fellow man then your voice is ignored by a political system that has more pressing things to think about. But if you step over the line and make noise, if you break the law and throw bricks at Policemen, if you kill and maim innocent bystanders, damage property and commit that most British of crimes, "disturbing the peace", then after the outrage and condemnation have run their course someone will eventually decide to sit down and talk with you. Make yourself a thorn in society's side and sooner or later your demands will be heard. And not just heard; in the fulness of time you'll probably be brought in from the cold and given a leadership role.
We live in a world where only the loud are listened to; and there are many who understand this and are prepared to be as loud as it takes. It's a shame our governments and leaders can't find the time to equally engage the quiet. I don't see anyone offering to bring the young, carers, refugees, ordinary people of quiet and dignified faith, single parents, the elderly or the homeless into the political establishment; rather, I see them increasingly marginalised. We face big problems today, and there are many who have much to contribute but because they either have no voice or have a moral compass that prevents them from stamping on others, they are ignored.
There are rumours that Obama might be about to talk to the Taliban. If he does then it's further evidence, should more be needed, that in today's warped politics there are now two routes into public office: the ballot and the bomb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
