Black Friday
I have been subject to a continual barrage of emails over the course of the week, promoting Black Friday sales. These have covered everything from power tools to medical supplies, children’s toys and even granite work surfaces. Obviously. there’s also been a lot of promotions for discount games. This eclectic mix reflects the fact that I use my online accounts to purchase items for my entire family. I hate to think what the various analysts and number crunchers make of this. My Amazon recommendations includes both urine bottles and Thomas the Tank Engine paraphernalia. But I digress, I’m sure pretty much all of us have been battered around the head and shoulders this week by various kinds of unsubtle marketing. However, I am happy to report that I have not succumbed to this “encouragement”. The simple fact is that I don’t need anything at present so have bought nothing. Furthermore, I had an epiphany nearly two decades ago, when I discovered that buying stuff really doesn’t make you feel any better, solve any of your problems or fulfil any of the inferred promises of the advertisements.
I have been subject to a continual barrage of emails over the course of the week, promoting Black Friday sales. These have covered everything from power tools to medical supplies, children’s toys and even granite work surfaces. Obviously. there’s also been a lot of promotions for discount games. This eclectic mix reflects the fact that I use my online accounts to purchase items for my entire family. I hate to think what the various analysts and number crunchers make of this. My Amazon recommendations includes both urine bottles and Thomas the Tank Engine paraphernalia. But I digress, I’m sure pretty much all of us have been battered around the head and shoulders this week by various kinds of unsubtle marketing. However, I am happy to report that I have not succumbed to this “encouragement”. The simple fact is that I don’t need anything at present so have bought nothing. Furthermore, I had an epiphany nearly two decades ago, when I discovered that buying stuff really doesn’t make you feel any better, solve any of your problems or fulfil any of the inferred promises of the advertisements.
Economically speaking, the Black Friday pre-Christmas sales have become increasingly important to retailers and in the UK are a big indicator of consumer confidence and a litmus test of how well the public feel the country is fairing. So far from the numbers that have filtered through today, it would appear that spending is up 6% over last year. But before we put out the bunting and shout “Yay for the UK economy”, let’s temper our enthusiasm with the fact that consumer debt (mainly unsecured loans via credit cards) is currently £200 billion. That’s for a country with a population of 65 million. And at a time when interest rates are finally rising after a decade. Oh, and let’s not forget that minor political and economic event known colloquially as BREXIT. That may also have a bearing on the situation with regard to the value of the pound, the cost of living and future consumer borrowing.
If you take time to reflect upon the big picture, it’s a very sorry state of affairs. We live in a society where many are trapped in low paid jobs with little chance of opportunity or improvement. Many are deeply unhappy with what they do for a living and see little chance of life getting any better due to a decline in social mobility. Social media has lifted the scales from the public eyes and the divisions between the haves and the have nots are laid bare. The country currently bitterly divided and rational thought is in retreat. The decline in institutions such as the church, along with a waning of a sense of community has resulted in a nation of “individuals” desperately trying to assuage their personal sadness through retail therapy. It’s a recipe for disaster and 2018 is potentially the year when the proverbial chickens come home to roost. I am not optimistic that things are going to get better soon, nor do I have faith in any politicians to fix these problems. But hey, that was a sweat deal you got on an electric haemorrhoid massager.
Jury Service
If you wish to enjoy the benefits of living in a “civilised” and democratic society, then there are certain “obligations” that the state calls upon its citizens to fulfil. Taxation is one. It’s is not especially popular but most rational people understand that the machinery of government and the provision of public services needs financing. Another example of a “civic duty” is jury service. All UK citizens have a right to trial by jury of my peers, should the need require. Naturally, these juries have to be filled with people, so you may well be invited to serve if you meet the following criteria.
- Between the ages of 18 and 70 years old.
- Registered to vote in parliamentary or local government elections.
- A registered citizen in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least five years since their 13th birthday.
If you wish to enjoy the benefits of living in a “civilised” and democratic society, then there are certain “obligations” that the state calls upon its citizens to fulfil. Taxation is one. It’s is not especially popular but most rational people understand that the machinery of government and the provision of public services needs financing. Another example of a “civic duty” is jury service. All UK citizens have a right to trial by jury of my peers, should the need require. Naturally, these juries have to be filled with people, so you may well be invited to serve if you meet the following criteria.
Between the ages of 18 and 70 years old.
Registered to vote in parliamentary or local government elections.
A registered citizen in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least five years since their 13th birthday.
There are the usual caveats that may exclude you from participation, such as mental impediment and being a convicted criminal. The courts can also waive participation under extenuating circumstances. Four years ago, I received a letter for jury service at The Old Bailey in London. The court deals with major criminal cases from within Greater London. Trials at the Old Bailey, as at other courts, are open to the public; however, they are subject to stringent security procedures. As I was self-employed at the time and didn’t have any reasons not to attend, I happily went along. It proved to be a very interesting yet emotionally challenging experience. One that I regularly reflect upon, hence this post.
I arrived late at the Old Bailey in October 2013. There had been a major storm on the day in question and rail services were heavily disrupted. Luckily, many other serving jurors were also affected so there was no consequence for me being behind schedule. The first thing that struck me was the security at the main entrance to the court. I had to show my letter from the court services along with proof of identity. I then proceeded through a series of x-ray machines and metal detectors, while my personal effects were examined. I then went up to the juror’s lounge and had to sign the court attendance register. I then identified myself again at reception where I was assigned an ID badge. I was told to take a seat and wait to be called. Within an hour I and twenty-four other jurors were randomly called and taken down to one of the courts for a case that was about to begin. We were then split in to two groups of twelve. My group remained in the court we were in and the other were taken elsewhere. The Judge then asked if any of us came from a specific area of London or were familiar with the accused. No one indicated that they were. Both the defence and the prosecution barristers were happy with the jury’s demographics so the case then immediately proceeded.
It is this latter point that I found fascinating. Within minutes of being called down to the court we were sworn in (I got to choose between a faith based or a secular oath) and then allocated specific seats on the jury benches. The case then began within minutes. We were immediately shown CCTV footage from a bus in which a teenage boy stabbed another who was sitting. The prosecution made a short speech about establishing a case that this was an act of premeditated murder. The defence offered a counter argument that the accused was defending himself. I specifically remember thinking, “wow, I was not expecting things to get so heavy, so quickly”. The lady next to me was very upset by the footage that we watched and broke down in tears. The reality of death is seldom like how it is presented on TV. Needless to say, over the next few days, we were regaled with a far more detailed account of events. There was further CCTV footage from the vicinity of the attack, along with the testimony of the witnesses on the bus. The coroner proved to be very informative and not at all what I expected. Furthermore, the cross examination of the witnesses by each barrister was extremely low key and a far cry from the hyperbolic melodrama we see depicted on TV. As ever with life, it’s the little things that somehow leave the strongest impressions. The prosecution barrister had a fancy briefcase for all his legal documentation. It actually had a fold out flap on which he lent while holding forth in court. Conversely, the defence had a similar mannerism when public speaking but instead used a box of leaflets to similar effect.
Another major point of interest in this experience were my fellow jurors. To my mind, the responsibility that had been placed upon our collective shoulders was immense. We had to decide another human being’s guilt or innocence. Depending upon our verdict that individual would then lose their liberty. I was concerned as to whether everyone else took the task in hand as seriously as I did. Thankfully they all did. In fact, the integrity of my fellow jurors did much to restore my dwindling faith in humanity. There was individual who I did think lacked the necessary rigour to undertake the task. Their attention would frequently wander and they had a propensity for garrulous inanities. However, they seemed to be content to go with the flow, which was essentially missing the point of jury service but it did make the proceeding a lot easy. Another gentleman sadly, took umbrage at some poorly phrased comments by fellow jurors which he felt were racially biased. He then decided to take a particular stance irrespective of the facts of the case, on a matter principle. There were also two other jurors who reached their positions regarding the verdict a little too quickly in my view and I suspect that where driven more by emotion, rather than the facts and logical thinking.
The case ran for two weeks and we spent three days deliberating our overall verdict. I was initially sceptical of guilty verdict. The CCTV footage was incomplete, as a key camera had failed on the bus and therefore didn’t provide essential footage. However, it was the forensic evidence that convinced me otherwise. Combined with the witness testimony and the CCTV footage which we did have, the facts indicated that the accused had struck first and not in self-defence. Furthermore, the nature of the injury demonstrated a level of force that could not be classified as anything other than deadly. Thus, we arrived at a verdict of guilty by eleven votes to one. The judge then thanked us for our service and gave us the option of being dismissed. However, due to unusual circumstances, the judge decided to pass sentence of the defendant that same day. The majority of the jury felt that as we had seen fit to reach this verdict, we should stay for the sentencing. So, eleven of us remained and listened to the judge pass sentence. The defendant although sixteen years old had been a minor when the offense took place. Therefore, a plethora of Home Office rules had to be applied which tempered the judge’s verdict. One consideration was that the defendant had spent nearly a year in a young offender’s unit, awaiting trial. The final sentence was seven years. Four years on, with “good behaviour”, the defendant may well now be eligible for parole.
I could write a lot more about this experience but I that’s not really practical. Plus, I guess even four years on I shouldn’t really give too many specifics of the case away. We were bound to silence at the time of the trial for obvious reasons. However, there are a few more random points that I would briefly like to make. It is often said that the senior judiciary in the UK are old and out of touch but this was not the case in this instance. This particular QC was worldly and understanding. He was very aware that due to the nature of the case, the defendant as well as many of the witnesses were young and may be intimidated by the formality of the court. He therefore waived a lot of the traditional trappings of the courts conduct to provide a more accommodating environment. Another thing that impressed me was the efficiency of the courts themselves. Considering the fluid nature of their work, they coped very well with managing the logistics. Oh and here’s a fun anecdote; one juror on another case was apparently always late back from lunch. Finally, after their third warning, the judge asked why they were late. “I bought a new coat in the sales. I save nearly a hundred pounds” they replied. And that is the amount they were subsequently fined for wasting the courts time.
Four years on, every now and then I still reflect upon my time on jury service. We live in troubling times and I have a somewhat sceptical outlook upon life and many of its major institutions. However, I found jury service to be a positive experience. The people I served with were a diverse but sound group of individuals. I felt that we did do the right thing by returning a guilty verdict and that justice was served. However, I cannot help but feel that there were no winners in this particular situation. The whole case, which I am not at liberty to describe in further detail, was an utter tragedy. If one chooses to stand back and look at the wider picture, both parties involved were a microcosm of so many of the social ills that blight this country. That however, is a much bigger discussion and not one I shall embark upon here. So, I’ll end this post as I started it, with the subject of “civic duty”. Having seen first-hand how the courts works, as well as how jurors still to this day take their role seriously, I believe that the system that we have in place is still inherently sound. It’s not perfect and I’m sure much can be done to improve it. Yet until we as a society come up with something better, I think we should stick with it. So if you ever get asked to participate, I would urge you to do it. It is both socially responsible and a very sobering personal experience.
“I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please”
This post has been fermenting for a while. I’ve postponed writing it because I've gotten somewhat tired of constantly “spitting in the wind”. Because that is what speaking out on certain subjects frequently feels like these days. There is a sense of tedious inevitability that any post on sexism, racism or any form of marginalisation will eventually lead to a torrent of vile, ill-informed and just plain dumb comments. The list of subjects “best avoided” seems to be getting bigger each day. Politics, religion and social issues have now been joined by the likes of economics, education and healthcare. But it doesn’t end there. Critiquing a book, movie, TV show or game can be deemed contentious and open a can of worms. Frankly, soliciting comments on any subject via social media seems to be courting disaster these days. The sad reality is that some people just revel in being vile and trying to hurt others. It puts me in mind of that quote from Platoon "Hell is the impossibility of reason". And you'll find precious little reason on the internet.
This post has been fermenting for a while. I’ve postponed writing it because I've gotten somewhat tired of constantly “spitting in the wind”. Because that is what speaking out on certain subjects frequently feels like these days. There is a sense of tedious inevitability that any post on sexism, racism or any form of marginalisation will eventually lead to a torrent of vile, ill-informed and just plain dumb comments. The list of subjects “best avoided” seems to be getting bigger each day. Politics, religion and social issues have now been joined by the likes of economics, education and healthcare. But it doesn’t end there. Critiquing a book, movie, TV show or game can be deemed contentious and open a can of worms. Frankly, soliciting comments on any subject via social media seems to be courting disaster these days. The sad reality is that some people just revel in being vile and trying to hurt others. It puts me in mind of that quote from Platoon "Hell is the impossibility of reason". And you'll find precious little reason on the internet.
Two things have occurred recently that prompted me to write this post. One is the ongoing decline of both the Official and Unofficial LOTRO forums. The other was a minor twitter exchange I was involved in recently. A simple comment made in reply to a political pundit, meant that my timeline was subsequently flooded by an argument that went on for hours, as all parties chased their own tails and frothed at the mouth. As for the two LOTRO forums, they’ve become so polarised that they now mirror each other with their own militancy and are effectively different sides of the same coin. Both of these events are far from unique. It happens every day (“no matter what you say”, according to Tom Jones). Yet they got me thinking why does it have to always be this way and is there anything that can be done?
Well I believe there is. However, don't go looking for a miracle cure in this post because I don’t claim to have one. What I am suggesting is fairly basic and certainly requires lots of time. In a nutshell, keep writing and debating. Don't throw in the towel. I know it's very tempting sometimes, hence my spitting in the wind reference. Yet if we do, then the only information that will remains out there in the public domain is misinformation. Therefore, we should not shy away from speaking out on difficult matters. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is our duty to do so. Sooner or later you have to pick a side. The alternative is to do nothing and watch it all go to hell in a hand basket (other portmanteaus and porterage devices are available). Here are few thoughts on what specifically can be done.
Research and a well-constructed argument: Debating is a skill. There is a process applied to discussing and arguing a point, the same way as mathematics and grammar have specific rules. Unfortunately, most folk either aren’t ware of them or feel their opinions are not subject to such criteria and so are happy to jump in to arguments feet first. It's a shame more schools do not teach critical thinking as it is an invaluable skill that can be brought to bear on so many aspects of life. However, it is prudent to consider that logic and objectivity cannot always be imposed upon a debate. Emotions do play a part and cannot necessarily be set aside. Especially if you have first-hand experience of the very matter being debated.
I believe it was the blogger Tobold who stated, "There cannot be any meaningful discussion of any subject if you start out by declaring only one side of the argument as valid". That is perhaps true of some subjects, especially if you are debating a matter that hinges on subjectivity and personal taste. However, in a debate regarding a subject such as equality, I cannot logically see any argument to validate a contrary stance. There are no degrees of equality. You either believe in it and live by it as a concept or you don’t. I guess the same can be said regarding certain scientific discussions, where specific rules and concepts are established. Mind you that doesn’t stop some people. But that raises a different matter where some individuals like to play devil’s advocate just for the fun of it.
Life is not simple: If you are intending to hold forth on a particular subject, it never does any harm to remember that most problems are what they are because of their complexity. Which is a nuisance because contemporary society really doesn't like or do “complex”. Listen to most radio phone-ins, read any internet forum or just glance through a tabloid newspaper and you'll find many of the most difficult and contentious problems the world currently faces, distilled in to some rather glib and factually questionable sound-bites. Furthermore, the public lap these up because they're easy to remember and trot out. It's far less hassle to spout some superficial nonsense you gleaned from the pages of the Daily Bastard, than spend time researching a subject and actually having to think and analyse data.
So, bear this in mind when you tackle a big issue when blogging etc. Question whether you are in a position to make a substantive point. Do your research and ensure you link to the sources you quote. Check the credentials of those supplying data and statistics. Is it a reputable organisation? Do they have any reason to be bias? Too often I see links in comments and forum threads that lead to questionable sources. Therefore, ensure that when you write about complex issues you don't make the mistake of inferring that it's a binary situation and easy to fix. Unless of course it is.
Change takes time: The previous point dovetails nicely in to this one. Progress is a long and often arduous path. Entrenched social attitudes and ideologies do not change overnight. Often, it’s a generational thing. For example, my parents were born in the 1930s and both have specific views on social status, race, religion, politics, patriotism and that other old favourite drugs. A quarter of the world was part of the British Empire during their most formative years and this era definitely shaped their world view. They have made some changes over the years but on some matters their beliefs remain strong. No amount of arguing will ever change that. However, such views are not so endemic with my own or my son’s generation. Simply put, some of the more unsavoury views from my parents’ generation will die with them. Change doesn't always come by winning "hearts and minds".
However, as with complexity, many people these days can't be doing with "long waits". Thus, we live in a time where knee-jerk reactions and crass, ill-conceived quick fixes abound. Why should gaming be any different from politics? All I can really say to the ardent campaigner or blogger with a strong social conscience, is it helps to cultivate some patience. Actually, you’ll need a lot. Bucket loads.
Be measured and fair: If for example, you as a gamer want to lobby the games industry with regard to the depiction of women in games. There is a requirement for you to engage with those who are either directly a part of the problem or those who seem to be indifferent to it. It's all about winning the middle ground and generating a head of steam. This process needs to be handled with subtlety and tact. Although passion is inspiring and anger can be power (or so The Clash said), step too far over the line and your perceived militancy (whether it is real or not) will work against you. It scares people and it may even drive those you need on-board to the other "side" of the debate. So, pick your battles, be firm, measured but always remain civil.
Another thing to be considered is the use of knowledge. Some gamers (and bloggers) are not as smart as others. Some folk are smart but driven by their emotions. It can therefore be easy sometimes for the intelligent or knowledgeable party to run rings around the other. Be careful in how you "wear" your intelligence. There's being clever and then there's wanting to be seen as being clever. Crushing a person publicly through Vulcan like logic does not necessarily mean that they will immediately recant their views and embrace yours. Quite the opposite. You may have made matters worse. Just watch them dig their heels in. You can be smart and make your point without being condescending or smug. However, that can be a difficult path to tread. Like it or loathe it, dealing with people in these situations requires a degree of diplomacy.
I sure we can all think of other points to add to the list. There's also an element of finding an approach that is right for you. Then of course there is always the option to simply not blog about some aspects of gaming or to stray in to certain areas of debate. However, I don’t think remaining “neutral” is a permanent option. Sooner or later you’ll get dragged in through tortuous logic as “opting to not have an opinion is tacit approval of status quo”. That being said, as a blogger, podcaster or streamer you are not obliged to discuss thorny issues if you don’t want to. That is your (and Bobby Brown’s) prerogative and you are free to create content in the manner that makes you happy. I am merely suggesting that if you feel the need to do express a view that may court debate, then you should not be deterred by the facts that it is hard to engage with some groups and that change takes time and work.
As I get older I do find that my passions have tempered over time. I do not find the need to go on that many demonstrations, nor to hold an "absolute" opinion on everything under the sun. I do tend to focus on more immediate issues that affect myself and my family (like the closure of my local A&E) rather than wider international matters. But even in my most sceptical of moments, I cannot truly advocate a total withdrawal of interaction on social issues. Because that means handing the floor over to the idiot brigade and therein lies madness. Plus, if we all did that then blogging would be a lot less interesting. Oh, and don’t forget that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It’s an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
What’s My Age Again?
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I am a child of the seventies. I was born in late 1967 so my most formative years were from about 1973 onwards. I really don’t remember a great deal of things prior to the age of five. Does anyone? Now the thing about the seventies is that in many ways it was a transitional decade. It had one foot in firmly planted within the post war socio-economic and cultural norms. The other was set in the new era of societal change that came about during the Sixties. Hence, I was raised with a mixture of both old school and modern values, ethics and ideologies. I believe these have provided me with a broad spectrum of “soft skills” (a term I abhor but it serves a purpose in this instance) that have been beneficial.
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I am a child of the seventies. I was born in late 1967 so my most formative years were from about 1973 onwards. I really don’t remember a great deal of things prior to the age of five. Does anyone? Now the thing about the seventies is that in many ways it was a transitional decade. It had one foot in firmly planted within the post war socio-economic and cultural norms. The other was set in the new era of societal change that came about during the Sixties. Hence, I was raised with a mixture of both old school and modern values, ethics and ideologies. I believe these have provided me with a broad spectrum of “soft skills” (a term I abhor but it serves a purpose in this instance) that have been beneficial.
As I approach the sober age of fifty, I have reflected a great deal upon my own world view and that of my fellow countrymen. In this instance, I’m using the catchall term world view to bundle together thorny issues such as politics, international diplomacy, crime and punishment. Also, let’s throw in prevailing public morals, social etiquette and manners. The reason I’ve placed all these in a figurative “bag” because it then makes it easier to broadly explore them. And the reason I wish to do this is because I feel there has been a major cultural shift in all of these and that the UK no longer has a prevailing consensus regarding many of these points.
The last few years have demonstrated that the UK is a divided country; politically, economically and socially. There are a broad spectrum of opinions and views abroad in the land and a lot of anger too. The latter is often unfocused, and in certain quarters is based upon perceptions and feelings rather than tangible facts. Frequently, I will read things via social media or traditional newsprint and find myself confronted with ideas, concepts and feelings that are utterly alien to my way of thinking. Now I’m more than capable of accepting the notion that other people may well hold differing views to me. I’m sufficiently old fashioned to even go as far as to believe fervently in their right to do so. However, what I struggle with at present is the binary nature of so many ardently held views. There is no scope for debate, accommodation or compromise, which are the underpinnings, for better or for worse, of any functioning democracy. You are either for or against. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Enlightened or a traitor. And don’t go thinking you can dodge this intellectual cul-de-sac by sitting on the fence. Not having an opinion is just as much of a crime as having a differing view.
I care for my parents, both of whom are in their late eighties. I live in an affluent, white middle-class, London suburb with a high proportion of elderly residents. By that I mean people who have retired and draw their pension. Therefore, every day at shops, clinics and bus stops, I am directly and indirectly exposed to the world views of this socio-economic group. A generation that grew up when the UK still had an empire and was a world power. A time when the country had a more clearly defined class system and set of consensual morals and prevailing social norms. Religion and faith were strong influences upon society. Multiculturalism was an abstract principle and anything other than heterosexuality was “wrong”. Jobs for life existed, along with final salary pensions and affordable housing. IE Homes that could be bought on a single income because they only cost four or five times your annual salary. This is also the generation that had a cultural predisposition towards deference to authority, tradition and maintaining the status quo.
Because of these factors and possibly many others, this stratum of society tends to have somewhat fixed views and are often discombobulated by the pace of modern life and much of the social change that has happened of late. There is a tendency to look back at the past romantically rather than objectively. Views and opinions from such quarters are often shaped by feelings rather than critical thinking. Now it is not my intent to demonise this particular generation, nor undermine their achievements. I merely seek to highlight that their prevailing world view has been shaped by the politics and culture of the post war years and that it is not necessarily a stance that makes them well equipped to deal with the ongoing global changes that well all now face. One can cogently argue that Brexit and other recent political events are driven by a resistance to globalisation and social advancement. However, such pushback doesn’t halt change. It merely postpones or temporarily redirects it.
My son and his wife are both under twenty-five. They have permanent jobs with as stable an employer you can find at present. Through fiscal prudence and good fortune, they are currently on the property ladder. In these respects, they are very similar to their grandparents and great grandparents. However, when it comes to politics and other mainstream social and economic opinions they have very different outlooks. Traditional party politics and ideologies are not favourably viewed. They’re seen as being outdated, inflexible and inward looking. Pride in one’s country is still present but is not blindly given and is tempered by historical perspective. Equality in all walks of life is embraced and seldom seen as an issue. International travel for both leisure and work, provides a different view of the world, borders and freedom of movement. National rivalries and entrenched tribalism are simply irrelevant to the young because they lack the historical baggage that their elders insist upon carrying.
Being the age that I am, there are some superficial habits, trends and affectations embraced by the young that I don’t immediately warm to. For example, internet culture and ideas of privacy can be very different. Easy access to credit is something I never had in my youth. I do worry about its proliferation and the impact it has on those born into such a world. Yet broadly speaking the young give me hope. Despite my grouchy demeanour I don’t regard them as whippersnappers. They are often compassionate and motivated. They have no interested in the bloviations of tribal politics. They expect solutions from all politicians, over and above party loyalties. They embrace equality and see beyond the confines of their own geographical borders. And most importantly, they are not yet jaded and cynical. Thus, they are not hamstrung by preconceptions that things can’t change. They dare to dream because life, or more to the point other people, haven’t yet shot them down in flames.
So, as I approach half a century and the world around me becomes increasingly binary, I look at the older generation and their current world view and reluctantly conclude that I cannot condone it. We need to look forward and not backwards. The past can never be restored and nostalgia seldom accurately reflects what actually transpired. Therefore, it is with the young that I believe that I have more in common. Because the world we are shaping now, they will have to endure long after we’ve gone. To ignore their wishes, hopes and aspirations is at the very least selfish and at worst a malevolent act of betrayal. Sadly, I don’t think this is a broadly accepted view at present. The under twenty-fives are simply seen as another subset of the electorate to be courted, rather than as potentially the most important sector of society. History sadly has a habit of repeating itself. Cicero wrote ““Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book". That was over two thousand years ago. Can our divided country move forward with any sort of unity or are we destined to pull in different directions until time simply eliminates certain world views?
NB: Due to the nature of this post I couldn't think of any specific images that were relevant. So I decided to use some fun ones just to break up the text.
Thoughts on the 2017 UK General Election
Politics is a controversial and emotive subject. It’s also something that a lot of bloggers are very wary of writing about sadly, because it’s seldom debated with any wisdom or civility. You’ll find my thoughts on the poor state of UK politics in this previous post, so I don’t need to reiterate them here. On this occasion, I would like to venture a few opinions on the General Election that was held in the UK this week, the interesting results and the potential fallout. I’m not here to champion any party, ideology or dogma, as I’m a floating voter without any major affiliations. I just merely want to express what I have observed and some of my hopes for the future.
Politics is a controversial and emotive subject. It’s also something that a lot of bloggers are very wary of writing about sadly, because it’s seldom debated with any wisdom or civility. You’ll find my thoughts on the poor state of UK politics in this previous post, so I don’t need to reiterate them here. On this occasion, I would like to venture a few opinions on the General Election that was held in the UK this week, the interesting results and the potential fallout. I’m not here to champion any party, ideology or dogma, as I’m a floating voter without any major affiliations. I just merely want to express what I have observed and some of my hopes for the future.
First off, the election has cost the UK tax payer approximately £142million. Despite what the Prime Minister said regarding establishing a mandate from the electorate regarding Brexit, there was no pressing need to call this election due to the fix-term parliament act that was introduced in 2010 by the coalition government. Theresa May prior to June 8th had a working majority of 330 Conservative MPs, which although not substantial, broadly allowed her to push her party’s agenda through the House of Commons. The UK electorate were far from spoiling for another vote, as election fatigue and political exhaustion are very prevalent of late. Brenda from Bristol pretty much summed up a common sentiment when her vox pop with the BBC went viral in April. Theresa May was more interested in quashing dissent in here own party as she had been challenged by back benchers in recent months. The election was simply called out of hubris and party-political gain and had nothing to do with gaining mandates. The country is divided over Brexit so there is zero chance of getting any sort of majority consensus on the matter.
The Conservative election campaign was ill conceived and poorly run, opting for populist, lightweight TV appearances, rather than public debates and discourse. The Prime Ministers absence from any meaningful discussion with her political opponents just came across as arrogant and just plain rude. The latter is something the UK public still broadly abhors. The repetition of vacuous soundbites and meaningless buzz phrases has finally worn thin and is now being perceived as an insult to the electorate. Also, some of the Tory manifesto, seemed to strike at the very party faithful that usually unquestionably supports their party. The so-called “Dementia Tax” was a staggeringly short-sighted idea that bit the very hand that feeds the Conservative party. The shameless pursuit of UKIP voters over the traditional political middle ground was also a costly error.
Now I’m not saying that the other political parties ran perfect campaigns. Far from it. There were mistakes and faux pas from all quarters. However, the Labour party focused very much on mobilising grass roots campaigners and getting out on the streets and knocking on doors. Jeremy Corbyn was also very much front and centre in the run up to the election. His non-confrontational style and unsophisticated passion for his beliefs, actually seem to chime with those he meets. Furthermore, the continual barrage of petty and spiteful calumny from the UK tabloid press seems to have been rejected by a large share of UK voters. People are fed up being told what to think by a handful of newspaper editors with their own agenda. These papers have effectively made Jeremy Corbyn in to an underdog. We don’t like bullies in this country and it’s funny how the public will turn and champion a person or cause if they feel that spite and malice are involved against them.
The overall turnout for Thursday vote was 68.7%, the highest since 1997. Much has been made about the youth vote and I am very glad to see the young engaged and getting involved with politics. Democracy is something we live and breathe every day, not something that we briefly enthuse over for a few weeks. There is a very clear difference in mindset and political outlook between the old and the young in this country and although I have a lot of love and respect for the baby boomer generation, too many of its political and cultural imperatives are obsolete, born of a by gone era that will never return. Brexit has clearly highlighted this. In numerous comments sections of various news websites, I’ve seen regular statements about the young’s alleged lack of “wordly experience”. It’s a trite, ad hominem argument that doesn’t wash. Wisdom does not come with age by default. Plus, there is no universal life experience to be had. History shows us that the young have built nations. Their views deserve no less consideration than those of their elders.
Whatever your personal loyalties and views, I think it is fair to say that UK politics just got a lot more interesting in the last forty-eight hours. The electorate have been taken for granted for too long and many are fed up with the status quo. Perhaps we’ve moved on from simple protest voting and are now considering tangible and practical change. Look what happens when we do. Whether you wanted Brexit or not, it’s a reality that needs to be addressed. If it is the most challenging issue this country has faced since World War II then perhaps it should be tackled jointly by all parties. Perhaps it is also time to firmly reject the tabloid press and their shameless interference in UK politics. May be politicians need to cultivate some courage and actually engage with the average voter. If they’re not prepared to do so then show them the door. I sincerely hope that voters of all persuasion are finally going to demand more from the political classes. The tail does not wag the dog and on Thursday the electorate reminded the Westminster of exactly that.
Register to Vote
A third of registered voters in the UK do not vote in either Local or General Elections. Out of an electorate of approximately 46,200,000 that is 15,700,000. Yet despite this substantial group not participating, it is seldom covered or discussed in the media. It is usually just written off as “voter apathy”, implying that those who did not cast their ballot are feckless, lazy or stupid. Not only is this patently untrue, not voting has major consequences. If this group of people were engaged and voted in the upcoming general election, then it would have a tangible impact upon the results. By not voting you are effectively giving the next UK government carte blanche to ignore your interests and pursue their own agenda. As Leonardo da Vinci famously said, "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence".
A third of registered voters in the UK do not vote in either Local or General Elections. Out of an electorate of approximately 46,200,000 that is 15,700,000. Yet despite this substantial group not participating, it is seldom covered or discussed in the media. It is usually just written off as “voter apathy”, implying that those who did not cast their ballot are feckless, lazy or stupid. Not only is this patently untrue, not voting has major consequences. If this group of people were engaged and voted in the upcoming general election, then it would have a tangible impact upon the results. By not voting you are effectively giving the next UK government carte blanche to ignore your interests and pursue their own agenda. As Leonardo da Vinci famously said, "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence".
I fully understand why people do not vote and are generally exhausted with the state of UK politics. Political discourse at present is devoid of any depth, substance or intellectual rigour. It is rife with spin and soundbites. False and spurious narratives are driven home by the tabloid press and the subtle complexities of domestic and foreign policy are distilled down to bogus binary choices. Furthermore, the major parties are all beyond their sell by dates and they know it. However, the archaic first past the post voting system favours them and not the electorate, so you’ll more than likely not see a change in electoral procedure for a while. Plus, we also have an ageing population that still cleave to outdated tribal allegiances which also skews matters further. Simply put, UK politics is a mess, especially if you wish to see change driven my intelligent discussion and an ethical consensus.
However, we are now facing a major crossroads in UK history, with Brexit. Whether you voted for it or not is now arbitrary. The realities of our countries exit from the EU needs to addressed calmly and by those who can genuinely obtain the best deal for the UK. Therefore, whatever government is in power after 8th June, needs to be scrutinised and held to account over every stage of Brexit. Therefore, it is extremely important that as many people turn out and vote on election day as possible. You can choose to vote for a specific party is you feel that they are best suited for the job, or vote tactically if you feel that will achieve a better outcome. If you feel that none of the candidates from the major parties suit your needs, then look to the smaller interest groups. If you find yourself in a serious moral quandary over who to vote for, then you can always spoil your ballot or write “none of the above”. The number of spoilt ballots is always noted and at the very least you have undertaken your duty as a UK citizen and turned up to vote. It’s not your fault that all the candidates are an utter shower.
So, if you are not currently registered to vote in the UK, then I would urge you to do so now. You have until 11:59 PM on Monday 22nd May. You can either contact your local borough council, or register online via the government website. The process is straight forward and takes about five minutes. The only details you need provide are you name, full address (including postcode), date of birth and National Insurance number. You can choose to either go to the polling station on election day or vote by post if you prefer. If you choose not to vote then you are effectively throwing away the only leverage you have as a citizen. Politicians primarily care about remaining in office, thus have an interest in registered voters. It can also be cogently argued that if you don’t vote and subsequently do not like the policies that are implemented because they impact upon you adversely, then you brought it upon yourself. Don’t give the next government a blank. Register to vote and have your say, even if your say is just “sod off”.
Is the UK Voting System Broken?
At present, there is talk in political circles of the prospect of an early General Election in the UK as a means of dealing with several looming political problems. If such a situation were to arise, then it has to contend with the fragmented state of the UK electorate as well as voter apathy and low turnouts. Perhaps the biggest issue is the mechanics of the election process itself. It has its roots in the past when there were two major parties. Things have changed in recent years with more political groups competing for parliamentary seats and the system now seems to be inequitable. So I thought it may be of interest to readers to offer a broad overview of the process. It differs quite considerably from other countries and as you'd expect with anything British, it has more than a few quirks and foibles. This is not in any way a discussion about party politics. I am simply writing about the actual mechanics of the UK First Past the Post system that determines who will form a government.
At present, there is talk in political circles of the prospect of an early General Election in the UK as a means of dealing with several looming political problems. If such a situation were to arise, then it has to contend with the fragmented state of the UK electorate as well as voter apathy and low turnouts. Perhaps the biggest issue is the mechanics of the election process itself. It has its roots in the past when there were two major parties. Things have changed in recent years with more political groups competing for parliamentary seats and the system now seems to be unequitable. So I thought it may be of interest to readers to offer a broad overview of the process. It differs quite considerably from other countries and as you'd expect with anything British, it has more than a few quirks and foibles. This is not in any way a discussion about party politics. I am simply writing about the actual mechanics of the UK First Past the Post system that determines who will form a government.
There are 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK, each returning a Member of Parliament (MP). For a single political party to form a government they need to have at least 326 MPs duly elected. When UK voters go to the polls, they are not voting for the specific leader of a particular party IE they are not voting who will be the British Prime Minister. They are voting for a specific candidate, who will represent their constituency at Parliament. This choice is dependent upon which candidates are standing for which parties in each constituency.
The party that wins 326 parliamentary seats or more is then in a position to form a government. The leader of that party then becomes Prime Minister by default. It should be noted that the UK Prime Minister is not also the head of state. That role which is non-political is assumed by the current Monarch.
At present in the UK, votes in local, regional and national elections are written by hand on Ballot Papers and counted manually. Not only does this reduce potential fraud but it actually makes the counting process easier. It also affords voters a chance to deface or spoil their ballot paper if they see fit. Something you cannot do if you vote mechanically or electronically. Disallowed votes are counted as such and statistics are kept.
Now here’s the part I and many other UK voters find most frustrating. Out of the 650 constituencies in the UK, approximately 456 are considered to be safe seats IE the current incumbent has a sufficient majority of votes from the local electorate to be able to maintain their position. Only 194 Parliamentary seats are based in constituencies that are deemed marginal. There is no fixed definition of a marginal but it is usually defined as seats with majorities of 10% or less that require a swing of 5% for the incumbent party to lose. Safe seats tend to remain constant. Marginal seats play a key role in elections.
I live in the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, in South East London. It is the embodiment of a white, middle class, residential borough and has been a safe seat for the Conservative Party for years. The electorate is about 65,000 in total. The turnout in the last election was about 69%. James Brokenshire the incumbent MP has a majority of over 15, 000 votes (he actually poled 24,500 votes).
No matter what my party politics and how I personally vote, Mr. Brokenshire is very likely to remain my MP by the simple fact he has an unassailable majority. He may lose some votes in protest but not enough to unseat him. The likelihood of 8,000 plus voters changing their political allegiances, in a constituency that is already socio-economically disposed towards the Conservative Party is highly unlikely. Similar arguments can be made regarding the static nature of all other so-called safe seats.
This raises one of the major failings of the current UK voting system and safes seats. If you live in such a constituency and vote against the current favoured incumbent, your vote effectively counts for nothing and has no impact on the UK political landscape. For years the UK has mainly been a two-party country and as a result the political system has evolved to reflect that. In 2010, the UK had a referendum on changing to the AV voting system that had elements of proportional representation. The change was rejected. Since then, several new parties have emerged and gained favour, while the two main parties have waned and lost some of their broad public support. We now live in a multi-party environment but lack a voting system to adequately reflect that.
Presently, the only voters that can tangibly make change in their constituencies are those that live in the 194 marginal seats. Because the incumbent's majority is often low in such situations and there are far more floating or tactical voters, ardent campaigning can yield results and make swings in either political direction. Effectively it is these constituencies and the voters that live in them that determine the UK General Election results. Because of such issues as population density, some of these marginal seats may have small electorates. In some cases, it's simply the floating voter within a few streets that can change things. It is both fascinating and a little concerning to consider that the next five years of government are effectively decided by a small percentage of the electorate.
The other issue that the UK faces in an election is the prospect of no party being an outright winner. The prospect of a coalition raises its head. Although coalitions have been effective in many other European nations, the UK is not culturally used to them. Where the younger generation seems to warm to the concept, those of an older age group with more entrenched party loyalties balk at the notion of "forced collaboration". However, I think this change in the UK's political landscape is here for good and if anything, there will be even more new parties in the next decade, especially if the Labour Party disintegrates. In the meantime, the only voters determining the outcome of the current election are those living in marginal seats. According to some political experts, this may be as few as 250, 0000 voters out of a total of 46,000,000 registered to vote.
To me is seems self-evident that the ageing First Past the Post system is not fit to serve a modern electorate and needs to be replaced by a fairer procedure. It is ironic that UK representatives standing as MEPs in the European Parliament are subject to a proportional representation voting system, as are the devolved parliament in Scotland and Wales. However, to expect a change to be implemented by the very party in government that directly benefits from the current status quo is naïve. In the meantime, we must continue to endure the flaws inherent in the process that is in place.
Thoughts on the Current Political Climate
Both the US Presidential election and the recent UK Brexit referendum are subjects that can be dissected from numerous angles and perspectives. Pundits, journalists and academics alike will be debating these “shock results” for months to come. As for the proverbial man in the street, let it suffice to say that these electoral outcomes have come as far less of a surprise. The divide between electorate and political classes has been clearly highlighted in 2016. However, it should be noted that the overall sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo is a very broad church and that the public are motivated by a wide variety of ideas, concerns and motivations. Analysis of both these political outcomes is complex and should not simply be dismissed with broad brushstrokes.
Both the US Presidential election and the recent UK Brexit referendum are subjects that can be dissected from numerous angles and perspectives. Pundits, journalists and academics alike will be debating these “shock results” for months to come. As for the proverbial man in the street, let it suffice to say that these electoral outcomes have come as far less of a surprise. The divide between electorate and political classes has been clearly highlighted in 2016. However, it should be noted that the overall sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo is a very broad church and that the public are motivated by a wide variety of ideas, concerns and motivations. Analysis of both these political outcomes is complex and should not simply be dismissed with broad brushstrokes.
Sadly, therein lies the rub. Complex problems often require complex solutions. We live in an age where the public seems to have very little tolerance for “complex”, as well as experts and facts. As Otto von Bismark said “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”. Compromise doesn’t strike me as something that will go down with a lot of the electorate. Therefore, it is not outside the realms of possibility that both the US and UK electorate will be disappointed by their respective governments within a year or so. When you consider the inherent diversity of individual expectations, it seems to be almost inevitable that Brexit and making America “great” again are projects doomed to overall failure.
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of these emergent social, cultural and political divides is the question of how to address them. Debate, interaction and conciliation appear to be currently off the table. How can there be any meaningful engagement when the media is reviled, facts are denied and binary positions are adhered to. There is no clear majority position at present therefore neither side can credibly discount the other. There are levelled headed individuals on both sides of the divide who will still want to engage in dialogue and counter arguments but I am doubtful as to how much success they will have. I have always thought that society, irrespective of its diversity of views and opinions, was at least founded upon some commonly held ideals. Perhaps that is no longer the case and that the rise of the “consumer” and individual over traditional notions of “belonging” to a wider society, no longer prevail.
It has been argued that one of the driving forces behind the ongoing political turmoil currently being seen in Western countries, is an inherent opposition to the established order. The electorate have reached a point where they simply wish to see change, irrespective as to whether it’s driven by a clear plan or not; change for change sake as the adage says. Naturally this comes with a degree of risk both economically and socially. Furthermore, the benefits of change are dependent on which side of the divide you are and whether you stand to gain or lose. As previously mentioned at present there is no majority opinion so there is scope for a very large number of people to find themselves in the “losing” group if significant change is achieved. Thus, we arrive at another factor that has been associated with both Brexit and the Presidential election; namely “fear”.
Politics across the US and Europe is currently very ugly. It has also been in the past so it’s not necessarily a unique situation but it’s been a while since things were so acrimonious and tribal. Legitimate subjects of debate such as immigration, economics and equality have developed a peripheral taint and are not always discussed calmly and logically. Because anti-establishment feeling has gathered momentum and proven successful at the polls, it has validated some of the more controversial views held by some. It also raises the question as to whether so-called “extremist views” are the prerogative of a few. Perhaps large sections of society in the US and the UK are not advocates of equality and do hold less inclusive views. After all morality and ethics are abstract concepts and not naturally occurring. A cursory look at world history shows that established schools of thought wax and wane and that democratic principles are not inherently our default setting.
At present, we find ourselves in a situation where a lot of people are genuinely worried that they will have their rights taken away or be vilified in some way. They feel that they will be relegated to a position of second class citizen or worse. There is genuine scope for social unrest and violence in both the US and UK at present. However, exactly how you feel about this climate of fear and the prospect of civil disturbances is dependent upon your politics or possibly more importantly whether is directly impacts upon you and yours. The social economic make up of your neighbourhood is a major factor. You may live in a flashpoint or removed from it all. Furthermore, riots usually tend to be contained by the authorities and thus those protesting tend to do the most harm to themselves. May be some of those that have pushed for change have done so knowing that they won’t directly bear the immediate consequences. Yet there are some types of fallout that cannot be avoided. Inflation, unemployment and the value of the Dollar or Pound in your pocket must be endured by all. As ever it’s the poorest who will potentially be hurt the most, which is ironic as statistics show they are the greatest advocate of these emerging movements.
There’s another group of people that’s worth considering. A very curious group that seems to be growing. Those who have chosen for whatever reason to opt out of the entire political and voting process. There are 241 million people of voting age in the United States but only approximately 200 million of those registered to vote. In the latest US election, only 46.6% of the electorate turned out to cast their ballot. Comparable percentages of voter apathy are rife in the UK and Europe. Why exactly such numbers of people have chosen to do this is perplexing. Utter exasperation, indifference, mental incompetence or independent wealth may all be factors. However, if this group ever become politically engaged at some point they certainly have sufficient numbers to impact upon the system. Sooner or later the most jaded or apathetic voter will find a reason to “get involved”. Sadly, this usually only happens when something truly bad is imminent.
So, where exactly does the current political landscape leave us? Some may say up a certain creek without a suitable mean of locomotion. Other may say en route to the promised land. The most likely outcome is somewhere between the two of these two views. There is political uncertainty ahead and that will have social and economic consequences. However, history shows us that many things are cyclical and if a period of economic prosperity can be achieved then political unrest usually subsides as all parties benefit from an improved status quo. However economic stability does not just occur by itself and requires intervention by third parties. We also must countenance the fact that maybe we as a species are not destined for a future such as that envisioned by Gene Roddenberry. May be the reason that we don’t “just all get along” is because we can’t. Perhaps we are an evolutionary cul-de-sac doomed to live in “interesting times”. Let us hope that the latter of these two prospect is not a forgone conclusion.
Park Closure Used For Cheap Political Capital
For the last twelve months residents of Sidcup, in South East London have been fighting against the sale of Old Farm Park but sadly the local council have approved the “disposal” of this asset. Many who live in the area are of the opinion that this was a done deal right from the get-go. However despite the inevitability of this situation, residents as well as some councillors and even the local Member of Parliament have been robust in their efforts to prevent this sale.
For the last twelve months residents of Sidcup, in South East London have been fighting against the sale of Old Farm Park but sadly the local council have approved the “disposal” of this asset. Many who live in the area are of the opinion that this was a done deal right from the get-go. However despite the inevitability of this situation, residents as well as some councillors and even the local Member of Parliament have been robust in their efforts to prevent this sale.
Over recent months many of those involved in campaigning have stated how difficult it has been to get wider media attention. The local newspaper has printed a few factually inaccurate stories but overall local TV, radio and the press have been somewhat indifferent. To them this simply is another case of Nimbyism from the suburban middle classes.
So I was somewhat surprised when I received a group email requesting residents to attend a meeting in the park today. London Mayor Candidate Peter Whittle (UKIP) was to make an appearance and there was to be news coverage from ITV. I believe there was a journalist from The Guardian present as well. Now although I am not a UKIP supporter, I am aware that they have spoken out about building of green field sites, so I decided to go along.
I try not to be too cynical but I had suspicions that this event was going to be more about campaigning for UKIP than addressing the specific issue of Old Farm Park. Sadly my suspicions were correct. Residents were kept waiting for the camera crew to arrive. During which time Mr Whittle and his entourage made no attempt to apologise for the delay or to thank those present for attending. During his talk he briefly referenced UKIPs policy on urban development and made an incidental nod to the matter in hand; namely the sale of this park. Overall he was far more concerned about the press coverage than the key local issue.
As for the actual news article that was shown tonight on ITV London News, it was not about the sale of the park or even the issue of property development in London. It was simply a political opinion piece in which a news reporter spent a day with Mr Whittle while he canvassed in Bexley Borough. As for the residents of Sidcup who attended the meeting this morning to talk about the sale of their park, they found themselves unwittingly featuring as UKIP supporters, due to the way the video was edited.
On mature reflection it was naïve to think that the presence of a politician and the involvement of ITV news would in any way prove beneficial. As for the sale of Old Farm Park that now seems to be a closed issue. However I don’t think the councillors that voted for the sale of Old Farm Park can afford to rest on their laurels. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the local residents who diligently campaigned to save the park will now spend a comparable amount of time and effort ensuring that those responsible are not returned to office in the next local elections.
The EU Referendum
On Thursday 23rd June the UK will vote on whether to remain a member of the EU or leave the community. It is possibly the biggest political, economic and social issue that I have voted on in my lifetime and both outcomes have the potential for both positive and negative effects upon the country and its future. As you would imagine with an issue of this magnitude, the pros and cons on both sides of the debate are complex. Immigration, security, trade, financial stability are some of the factors involved that shape people’s opinions. Then there are more nebulous concepts like sovereignty and nationalism that influence voter’s perspective. Whereas the logistical and administrative arguments are far more couched in facts and data, the more emotive issues are driven by tribal politics and feelings. I’m not a fan of either.
On Thursday 23rd June the UK will vote on whether to remain a member of the EU or leave the community. It is possibly the biggest political, economic and social issue that I have voted on in my lifetime and both outcomes have the potential for both positive and negative effects upon the country and its future. As you would imagine with an issue of this magnitude, the pros and cons on both sides of the debate are complex. Immigration, security, trade, financial stability are some of the factors involved that shape people’s opinions. Then there are more nebulous concepts like sovereignty and nationalism that influence voter’s perspective. Whereas the logistical and administrative arguments are far more couched in facts and data, the more emotive issues are driven more by tribal politics and feelings. I’m not a fan of either.
Over the next one hundred and twenty or so days both campaigns will vie for the public’s attention. Those who have already made up their minds which way they intend to vote are not really relevant in terms of the campaigning that will be conducted. It is those who have yet to make up their minds that will hold the balance. For such people (myself included) to make an informed choice, there is a requirement for clear and succinct data. I would like to be presented with comprehensive fact based arguments from both sides. I would also like to see measured and impartial discussions by the UK media. Sadly none of this is going to happen. The UK press, especially the newspapers are biased and both respective campaigns seem to be focusing on soundbites based upon fear. It seems that the referendum will be determined by lowest common denominator politics.
I’ve read the opinions of many ardent supporters from both sides of the debate and am very much bemused by the idealism and naivety exhibited. A common refrain is that of “unelected officials” and having to endure the governance by parties one didn’t vote for. But this is something that the majority of the electorate currently endure already from our own existing Parliamentary system. I also do not understand why some quarters are more trusting of our own politicians than those of the EU. A UK government free from such EU rules as the Human Rights Act and Working Time Directive could potentially act with impunity and to the detriment of many an employee. UK governments of all political persuasions have hardly acted with integrity or for the benefit of all over the last three decades. I would also add that he stay campaigns fixation on security and defence is also spurious. The UK whether in or out of the EU is still a major player in both NATO and the UN.
However what we have learned over recent months is not to put too much stock in opinion polls and market research. The Scottish Independence referendum appeared to be going in one direction at one point, as did predictions for a hung parliament in last May’s UK general election. The public is less free with information about their voting preferences these days and may well continue to play its cards close to its chest. This is hardly surprising as some of the more vocal members of the public seem to be far from tolerant of differing views. Look at any comment section of a news website covering the EU referendum and you’ll find hyperbole, invective and a general lack of respect. I see that Patriotism is now being trotted out as an argument from some quarters of the leave campaign. Need I quote Samuel Johnson?
At present not only do I find myself considering my own position on the referendum itself but also whether I will be able to personally endure any potentially negative consequences that may ensue, regardless which decision prevails. If there are economic problems at a later date, will my own personal circumstances be sufficient to insulate me from any financial fallout? It is worrying to have to think in such terms and only adds further to the entire negative ambience of this entire campaign. Perhaps for the sake of balance it would help to consider on some more light hearted questions that stem from this debate. If the UK leaves the EU does that mean we will no longer be able/have to participate in the Eurovision Song contest? Also does a successful Brexit mean that the UK Independence Party’s work is done and it will cease to operate? There’s precious little levity in contemporary UK politics, so let us enjoy a little now. I’m sure in three months’ time all vestige of humour will be gone from the EU referendum debate and fear and loathing will be the default response from most quarters.
The Decline of UK Politics
I’ve written this post from the perspective of politics in the UK but I daresay that some of the points are relevant to other Western countries. Please note that this is not a post advocating any particular political stance or ideology. It is a commentary about the system itself and the public’s current relationship with the world of politics per se.
Two party politics has dominated the UK for over two hundred years and the electoral system that has evolved reflects that. The first past the post system has major shortcomings when dealing with emerging parties and diverse voting patterns. In recent years the traditional parties have seen a decline in membership and they no longer enjoy the levels of support with the UK electorate that they did fifty years ago. My parents grew up in a culture of tribal politics, driven by class, wealth and left wing and right wing ideologies. I personally think the notion that a single party can adequately represent all my political, philosophical and ethical needs is risible. Therefore I have no specific party allegiance or cleave to a particular political school of thought. I am a floating voter when it comes to both local and national elections.
I’ve written this post from the perspective of politics in the UK but I daresay that some of the points are relevant to other Western countries. Please note that this is not a post advocating any particular political stance or ideology. It is a commentary about the system itself and the public’s current relationship with the world of politics per se.
Two party politics has dominated the UK for over two hundred years and the electoral system that has evolved reflects that. The first past the post system has major shortcomings when dealing with emerging parties and diverse voting patterns. In recent years the traditional parties have seen a decline in membership and they no longer enjoy the levels of support with the UK electorate that they did fifty years ago. My parents grew up in a culture of tribal politics, driven by class, wealth and left wing and right wing ideologies. I personally think the notion that a single party can adequately represent all my political, philosophical and ethical needs is risible. Therefore I have no specific party allegiance or cleave to a particular political school of thought. I am a floating voter when it comes to both local and national elections.
Although politics is a deeply divisive and problematic subject to discuss, a fully functioning democracy requires a politically literate and engaged population. Sadly that is not the case at present. Political debate, national policies and our entire approach to the subject has deteriorated in my lifetime. Politicians are viewed cynically by the overall population and often for legitimate reasons. Parties no longer seem to be driven by any credible ideologies or dogma. Major issues are seldom addressed and often kicked into the proverbial long grass. Furthermore the media exults political discourse of the lowest common dominator. Meaningful and civilised debate is virtually non-existence. Consequently large swathes of the population are no longer interested in politics. Many of those that profess to be so, are ill informed and have no idea how to discuss their views in a viable manner.
It is ironic that in an age when virtually anyone has access to tools that allow them to express an opinion and engage with others, that the level of debate has so notably declined. We live in a binary world in which opposing views are not countered by facts and data but are merely shouted down. In seems that many who live in our democracy seem to eschew its universal applicability. Tolerance, politely begging to differ and simple common sense are scarce commodities these days. Furthermore the UK has slowly since the sixties assimilated US style politics, which chooses to focus on the cult of personality rather than issues. Electoral pledges and longstanding policies are replaced with soundbites. It’s no longer about advocating what your party can offer but sowing the seeds of fear about the opposition. Last year’s general election result effectively came down to floating voters deciding at the last minute based on who they feared the most with regard to running the economy.
This malady affects politics at every level. From the comments section of any news website, to local government, right the way up to Parliament itself. I recently attended several council meetings regarding a local issue and was shocked by the lack of decorum and the subpar debating skills of the councillors. Straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks were rife and the quality of the meeting was very poor. Few had any concept of public speaking or debating skills. Yet this approach to politics is endemic at present and I fear it will be the driving factor behind the forthcoming Europe referendum. I would like to see detailed arguments from both sides of the debate, backed up with facts and data. Whether the UK remains part of the EU is an extremely complex matter with major ramifications. Surely the public needs to be provided with robust information before an opinion can be formed or decided upon. Sadly the debate will be driven by fear and some perfunctory soundbites. It is deeply worrying that a decision of this magnitude will be decided upon in such an arbitrary manner.
The most depressing thing for me about the state of contemporary UK politics is the feeling that my vote carries no weight and is of little consequence. I believe this is a contributory reason why a third of the UK’s 45,000,000 registered voters do not bother to cast a vote. Let us not forget that there is a further 6,000,000 people who are entitled to vote but have not registered. Thus we have elected government implementing policies with nowhere near a convincing mandate. The current administration is in power after successfully polling about a quarter of the electorate. Again due to the failings of the current voting system other parties gained over 4,000,000 votes yet only secured one seat in Parliament. Unless you live in a marginal seat that can potentially swing between parties, then your vote has no impact upon political change.
I am also not comfortable with the blanket demonization of all politicians, journalists and pundits. Although many are of a poor standard there are still those that seem motivated for the right reasons. During my career I’ve met many on both sides of the political divide that I admire. However they are often hamstrung by the system they work within and the fact that they are often dealing against groups with powerful vested interests. The net result is that those of worth and character frequently go unnoticed on a national level. Plus the unsophisticated rhetoric of the current political arena means that we seldom get beyond “Tory scum”, “bleeding heart liberal” and “Champagne Socialist”. Such hyperbolic language stifles any discussion and further muddies the waters. The opinion of those that use such jargon is seldom informed.
What I would like to see emerge from the current status quo would be a new voting system based upon some form of proportional representation. I would also like to see new parties emerge as well as far more independent candidates, especially at local level. There is a need for policies born out of intelligent debate from all quarters, rather than thought up be biased think tanks. Politicians need to create a new covenant with the electorate and validate it by their deeds. However I am fully aware that this is all highly unlikely. Society seems to be regressing at present, as the divide between rich and poor increases and tolerance, informed opinion and a wider world view are largely in decline. I can if pressed fall back up a personal position of “I’m alright Jack” but many can’t. Also I don’t want to have to adopt such a self-centred and isolationist mentality.
As I stated at the start, I do not consider this post to be a political statement in support of a particular party or group. I merely see it as a summary of the perceived failing of our current political system. It is of course based upon my own personal perspective. I’m sure that those that enjoy power would see it quite differently. However we are far from a golden age of national politics and are not necessarily a nation driven by common ideals and values anymore. The good of the country seems to have been supplanted by the needs and desires of the individual. None of this is good for the UK. A healthy democracy needs a government that is seen to respond the wishes of its people. There is also a need for a robust opposition and debate. None of this is possible if the majority of the electorate are political disengaged. If this situation is not addressed then the future consequences could be dire.