Who won the election?

Well who'd have thought we'd all get it so wrong. I was convinced that a taste of coalition compromise which seemed to work would enable the electorate to be even more bold in following their own preferences. But in the aftermath one hears on the media time after time, people explaining why they voted against lifelong or instinctive preferences for either the Tories or the SNP. Perhaps Jim Murphy was right about the Scottish scene when he said that people voted SNP thinking they'd get Labour, moderated by the SNP. (Italics mine). But if Scottish voters thought they could trust the SNP better, then perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the English felt the same about not quite trusting Labour.

I think many of us feel really sorry for all those committed, principled and hard working MP's who lost their seats. The Labour toll in Scotland and the Lib Dem toll across the country has indeed been wounding. I'd like to see both parties come back from the ground up as it were, and I fervently hope that at least one of them will commit to something that we the elctorate desperately want to see: openess, transparency and honesty. Politicians who will answer questions directly, succinctly and honestly, who will call a stupid or provocative question just that, and tell us things as they really are. For example, I'd like to know things like how much money the NHS in Scotland costs at the moment, and how much is being proposed to spend in the next year, and rough menu of things which the additional spend could buy. I'd like to be told, "No, the public can't get this, this and that from the current funds available for NHS/Education/Welfare spend. If we want to do this this and that, we'd need extra cash and this is exactly how we as a party would like to get that cash." Wouldn't that be refreshing? I'd like to see the opposition party leader at question time refusing to get into a public school type verbal brawling match, and instead give the leader opposite credit for doing good things, and ask questions that were not designed to discredit the other party but simply to gain information.  Surely one of these broken parties could not only reinvent themselves, but reinvent how we do politics too? That would get my vote.

Who will win the election?

Writing a blog is a hard taskmaster. It sits there in the undercover of my electronic clutter and every now and again I'm ambushed by a guilty thought which takes me in this direction. The link on our church's webpage is another rather provocative reminder to me of my literary inertia. Anyhow, this week I'm a little ahead of the game, so am able to spare the moment or two that this takes. I'm ahead of the game not only because my weekly preparation is ahead of schedule, but because I've got a rather busy schedule to do with the election behind me as well. No, I'm not standing for election, and I've not been out there canvassing for some party or other, but I was quite busy organising a local hustings, or public question time event with our local parliamentary candidates, and we were fortunate enough to get the sitting candidate and the main rivals to come along.
It was a most interesting evening from a few different perspectives. I found the audience an interesting mix of camp followers and engaged and knowledgable local people many of whom were new to my aquaintance. The candidates themselves were interesting too, as of course they would be. They represented a healthhy range of experience, age and attitude, and so I discovered that I had a good and varied "menu" from which to choose on polling day.
Now, I chanced to see some of Panorama's "Who will win the election?" programme with Nate Silver, the American polster who gets it right. One of the points he made was that the polls get it wrong because they don't really manage to take into consideration "the local influence", part of which is our knowledge of the local candidates. So what is at work is more than party loyalties and preferences, but sympathies and preferences for people who have impressed or disappointed us outwith a party political arena. That's why I like local engagement with our political players. We might still vote along party lines, but we might be stimulated not to as well. It can upset the apple cart. I beleive that whatever the outcome of this election, it will underline the message of the last election, which was that the 2 party monopoly is over. Days of negotiation, compromise, cooperation, constructive dialogue lie ahead. And you know what? I think we, the electorate, and the way in which parliament works shall all win in those circumstances.

Fry and God

Well, Stephen Fry’s been having a very public go at God. And of course he’s stirred up some interesting responses: Russell Brand for one!! And David Robertson the Christian Scientist/Philosopher has a response out there too.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Run1jpZvS4

https://theweeflea.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/stephen-frys-god-a-video-response-to-his-rte-interview/

Both Brand and Robertson make good points. Basically Fry, a clever bloke by all accounts, has made the mistake of assuming that it would be God’s job, if God existed, to make and keep the world perfect. That’s what Fry thinks God should be for. Robertson makes the point that love is what it’s all about and challenges the Fry point of view by asking what a so called perfect world would have to be like. Brand challenges the criticism of religions in general that takes them quite literally and ignores the deeper spiritual message that drives them. Good for him.

One of Fry’s criticisms of Jesus is that some his sayings are “twee” and impractical, like the one about letting the person without sin cast the first stone. Fry omits to give Jesus the credit for having just saved the life of the adulterous woman with that little line. And no-one has ever suggested that that saying should or ought to become the basis for world jurisprudence, least of all Jesus. Fry also takes the very easy and emotionally loaded line of using disease in children as a club with which to bash Theism. There are many devout believers in God who have watched their children succumb to dreadful diseases and who have not tried to blame God for this.

It looks like Fry is having a go at the God of Christianity in particular, although presumably all forms of God are included in his attitude. He does not pause to think that because of the Christian Faith, he can very safely and easily say what he does, because one of the hallmarks of contemporary Christian society is that it offers safety and protection to those even who disagree with it.

I know Christianity has a lot of bad stuff to answer for, and that is why some people who are a bit angry at its still rather venerated position in British society, feel they can rant at it.  But it is neither wise nor clever to come to a conclusion about something’s validity, usefulness or worth based on the worst examples of it. (I rather like the way Brand uses this argument with regard to football!)

Welcome to the UK

The phrase just being said as we switched the TV on this morning was "business as usual" before a sports item came on. From that I assumed that independence had been rejected, although I couldn't be 100% sure, as I had been privately saying that it would feel like that even if it had been "Yes". My other worry had been that it would be politics as usual in an independent Scotland, and I didn't like the thought of a mini-Westminster style of politics in Edinburgh as our inheritance. However a quick check on other channels confirmed our suspicions. I must say, a feeling of relief came over me, as the thought of the massive uncertainties facing us if we had gone independent were just a little daunting to my mind. However, I feel that this is the beginning of a new era for us all.

There can be no going back now on the road to greater devolvement of government as a continuing journey. Too many big promises were made in the last days of the vote here, and the growing desire for greater autonomy in other regions is also going to translate into political response soon. And don't forget the West Lothian question. That will now take on a much higher profile on William Hague's new committee's agenda I think. So, all in all, hopefully a win win ultimately for both no and yes. But I do admit to also feeling the tiniest wee bit of disappointment this morning too. We are funny creatures.

What country will we be in tomorrow morning?

For those of us who actually voted in the referendum today it was something of a momentous occasion, the impact of which we hadn't really been able to anticipate. But in chatting to others, there was a common strand of deep emotion which evidently ran through most of their experience of voting. "My hands were shaking", said one person. "I felt deeply moved as I stood there and looked at the voting paper" said another, and so on. The implications of a vote either way, ran through us. This was different. Governments come and go. Political leaders have their day and say. This had a "once and for all" irrevocable, unchangeable, fixedness about it. We don't readily go there in things so deep. We like to keep our options open. But today we had to commit. We all knew just how much this mattered, and we also cared that everyone else cared too. Again, a common theme was just how much we wanted others to vote, to show their hand, so that whatever happened, we would know that a great many people had shifted or stayed the course of our nation, and not just the usual crowd.

By now the boxes from the tiniest communities are making their sealed way to the counting centres, and soon the media will be fixing their gaze on those spots and flooding the nation with speculation, opinion, and guesswork. I know some people will sit up and with bated breath give the process their rapt attention through the wee hours. Much as is invested in the result, I will not. I can't change the outcome now, and the razor's edge of emotion as the counts swing the overall result one way and then another will not be good for me. Great moments in the history of our nation have come and gone without everyone staying awake throughout their course. It will be strange however going to bed knowing that the morning will bring news of something that matters deeply to all of us, and will change the face of our nation (UK and Scotland, yes or no) for good. Some people are expressing the worry that we will whatever happens wake up a divided nation. I don't think so. We are pretty good, I suspect, at accepting the majority decision, by and large, and working with it together. There will no doubt be some high profile dissenting from the majority view, but that will just help sell papers hopefully.

So I go to bed tonight with the feeling that we've all jumped off a diving board together, into the dark. Let's see where we land.

 

New take on the referendum

In the interests of evenhandedness, and to show that I can be influenced by intelligent, articulately expressed common sense, I share parts of a comment written by Richard Holloway, from a selection of contributions on Independence in the Review in Saturday's Guardian, .

"The referendum debate reminds me of those arguments for and against the existence of God that were such a feature of our cultural scene about 10 years ago. The cases offered in support of either side were rationalisations of convictions reached on other, usually subconscious grounds, which is why they tended to fortify beliefs already held rather than make new converts; and they left agnostics undecided. The same thing seems to be going on here, with the agnostics the group likely to swing the vote, depending on which side they find less satisfactory on the day."
"Economics strikes me as no more conclusive a science than theology, which is why I have been more irritated than enlightened by the use each side has made of the dismal science in the debate; but while the arguments of the yes side may not have persuaded me, the arguments of the no side have propelled me in the opposite direction. Rather than making a positive case for the union, the Better Together campaign has wasted its energy on attacking the idea that Scotland could go it alone, a tactic guaranteed to anger those of us for whom the question was never whether we could, but whether we should."
"And there has been little recognition on the unionist side that the British political system is broken...... Overcentralised Britain concentrates power in ways that are hard to challenge. I support the Catholic principle of subsidiarity: power should be decentralised to the maximum degree; and that's what the soft form of independence on offer will help us achieve."

I can't help but agree with Richard on the force of the arguments so far. Whether or not I've been pushed as far as "yes" I'm not saying. But I do think that more and more people are beginning to agree that the argument isn't really about economics. Maybe it's just about politics.

Let the revolutions begin - end the tyranny no 2: the tyranny of news

I have been fed up with the way the TV and radio, and the newspapers for that matter too, give us our news, for years. The TV and radio are particularly bad. You get a small handful of headlines at the start - maybe 5 or 6, and that, dear reader, is your world news for today. No matter what else has happened, you ain't going to hear about it. And then the rest of the programme is taken up with the special editor for this or that appearing on location, in a hotel, or in front of a meaningful building "somewhere", telling us little more than the newsreader did, followed up by long minutes of speculation and opinion being thrown at us as if it were the news. I guess they think we are more inclined to be impressed by them if they are giving us the news "on location".
Then there is the aggressive interview. Some politician whose party or who personally has done something to make a headline is sat in front of a camera or a microphone and someone like Eddie Mair or John Humphrys fires off questions designed to get one word admissions and headline grabbing scoop statements so they can tell us that we heard it on their programme first. The belligerent aggressive tone of much of the interviewing is breathtaking. Moreover, if the interviewee declines to answer by bodyswerving the question, they are usually asked the same question again at least 4 or 5 times, albeit with slightly different words. But the answer which the interviewer wants to elicit is not so much news as a headline grabber. I want news, not the carousel of questions which the interviewer thinks will enhance his or her reputation.
So what do we do? If you can, you could always switch the news off after you have heard the headlines, because believe you me, you really won't know much more by the end of the programme. Perhaps we could all switch to buying the i, cheap and full of news.
The fact is, the media have trained us to expect and understand news in the way they deliver it. It is a tyranny and a conspiracy. I have heard of a couple of guys who run a news station in the New York I think, and all they do is give brief news headlines when they go on air. Great. And when I want opinions, I can listen to Question Time.....just don't get me started.