I wrote this post over a year ago and a lot has changed since then. Me and my political thinking chief among them. Oh, I haven’t converted to the Church of Corbyn or anything like that, but I do think I’ve drifted much more towards “The Centre” than I’ve previously ever been. I think I might even have drifted slightly left of centre, if I’m being completely honest with myself. Only slightly left, though. Or maybe the world around me has lurched a long way to the right? Is that it? I’ve always considered myself to be slightly right of centre. I have always believed in the rights and responsibilities of the individual over The State. I’ve always believed that The State should be there to provide the public services that it’s not realistic (or should that be profitable) for The Market to provide, to look after those who can’t look after themselves and to provide a helping hand back onto their feet to people who’ve fallen on hard times. And I still believe all that. I really do. But I think it’s my definitions of what’s realistic for The Market to provide and those who can’t look after themselves and what the helping hand is that have changed. I don’t know. Maybe my definitions haven’t changed and it’s simply the case that Brexit has broken everything and throughout 2018 the extremists on both The Right and The Left have felt released to say the things they’ve been thinking for years but never dared say before, making my position seem more moderate and ‘Centrist’ than ever before. But having listened to the public debate, which grows more and more toxic with each passing day, become more extreme at both ends, it’s made me question my own views, compare them to others and consider ideas that I’d have dismissed out of hand previously. The Railways, for example. I now think that having the railways, a public service, run for a profit by private companies might not be such a good idea. It leads to corners being cut to save money with the aim of increasing the dividends to shareholders. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am all in favour of shareholder dividends. I hold shares myself through my pension and ISA so I want those dividends to be as high as possible, thank you very much. But the railways are such a crucial part of our national infrastructure, that surely any money they generate should be put back into making the service safer and more reliable. I don’t think straight ‘nationalisation’ and return to the days of British Rail is ideal either though, so maybe a hybrid solution can be found. Natwest has been run as a private company, but owned in the majority by the Government ever since the crash in 2008, so why can’t we do the same with the railways? Run them as Government owed, not-for-profit companies, with no special rights or market privileges? Indeed, as a public service, they’d actually have increased responsibilities. Universal Basic Income is something else I’ve been thinking about. It’s something I laughed at when presented by the Greens during the 2015 election campaign, but the more I think about it, the more I see merit in it. Of course, the more I think about it, the more I also see the problems any government would have in implementing it, but I think it could be done if the political will were there. I guess what I’m trying to say, is that I’ve changed politically more in the past twelve months than at any time in my life before. And it’s happened at a time when the political parties in this country are changing more than they have in decades, moving further apart from each other and, I believe, from the public at large. Sure, some of the people have been dragged right or left along with the Tories and Labour, but I do think there are more people like me now, people who feel politically homeless, as if we don’t have anyone to vote for, than there has ever been. My boy is thirteen now. A Teenager. And I still try, whenever I can, to make sure we’re listening to political debate and try and educate him politically. But while I was sure of where I stood and where I wanted to lead him a year ago, I no longer am. And that may not be a bad thing. Maybe it’s good for him to see his father trying to work out the current climate for himself, at the same time that he is trying to work it out. This, at least, will show him that one’s views are not fixed, that you can change your mind when the facts or the circumstances change. Ultimately, being the best, most engaged of political citizens requires thought and an ability to look at all sides of an argument and make a value judgement. And politically dogmatic people, those who have always swung the same way and are rigid in their views, don’t do that. They are not the ones that affect the results of elections. It’s people like me that decide elections. And that’s not a bad position to be in. Unless you don’t have anyone to vote for.
Left v Right
There was a conversation on the Radio this morning which, for me, perfectly illustrated the difference between left-wing and right-wing views of the world.
Language
I have said this before but, I love the way that language can be used to manipulate the way people think about something. Take, for example, the way that people who have entered a country though means other than the official channels have been described before and after the recent U.S. Presidential election. Prior to election day, during the campaign, these individuals were routinely referred to as “Illegal Immigrants.” And following election day, in particular in connection with the #sanctuarycampus protests, they are being called “Undocumented Immigrants.” Both descriptions are factually accurate. Entering a country in ways other than the proper channels, for example sneaking across a land border or stowing away on a sea-going vessel, is very much an illegal act and leads to the individual not having the appropriate documentation, like a visa, and thereby being ‘undocumented’. But the two words used here are meant to make the listener/reader think and feel different things about those being described. “Illegal” is clearly a bad thing. Its usage is designed to make one consider these people in a harsh light. They are criminals. They are ‘cheating the system’. Whereas “Undocumented” is a much softer description. Its use is designed to make you think that those being described are not bad people, they haven’t really done anything wrong, they just don’t have the right paperwork. And yet, both words remain factually accurate descriptors of the people in this situation – that being, people who have not used the proper channels to enter a country. Keep in mind, this isn’t even a descriptor of refugees, because refugees entering a country do so legally and will have appropriate documentation. The choice of descriptor tells you as much about the people choosing to use it as the people being described – if you’re able to look past the rhetoric and no be manipulated by the power of the chosen descriptor, that is. Language. It’s fascinating. And it’s one of the reason I choose to write. I love being able to manipulate what people think and feel through my choice of words. I guess what separates me from the political class is that I do it for entertainment, yours as much as mine, while they do it for “other reasons”.
Protesting Democracy
In 2015, when Britain voted for a right-of-centre Conservative majority that no one had predicted, there were protests on the street from left-wingers. In June 2016 when Britain voted to leave the EU when no one expected it, left-wingers were on the streets protesting. And now that Trump has been elected President when no one expected it, the left-wingers are on the streets protesting. Why don’t left-wingers like democracy? You didn’t see right-of-centre people protest when Tony Blair or Barrak Obama were elected. But when they lose elections, left-wingers seem to be “mad as hell” and “aren’t going to take it anymore”. Sorry, but I don’t understand that attitude.
A Message to the People of the USA
I’d like to say something to the folks across the pond who are feeling the kind of shock, disappointment and, yes, even anger, that I felt on the morning of June 24th. Democracy sucks. It’s a flawed system and sometimes you don’t get the result you want or expect. But it’s the best system we have and the alternatives are not even worth thinking about. You didn’t get the result you wanted. You are angry and can’t understand why *anyone* would have voted the opposite way to you. How could they? Don’t they see? What’s wrong with these people? It shouldn’t be allowed. Something must be *done*! But at the end of the day, this is Democracy. Your nation had its say, and it spoke clearly. And now you *have* to accept the result. Yes, *you*. You personally. You don’t have to be happy about it, but you *do* have to accept it. Because if you don’t, you undermine everything your Democracy, your country, stands for. Everything that our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought for. Yes, yes, I know, right now you think that the other guy winning undermines everything your country stands for. But the truth is that more people disagree with you than agree. And in a Democracy, The Majority rules. Even the “quiet Majority” that don’t express on social media every feeling they have every second that they have it. Tweets, facebook posts and hashtags don’t matter. Votes do. One person, one vote. No-one’s opinion is more valuable than anyone else’s – even the rich, famous and powerful still only get one vote. I was shocked and angry when Britain voted to leave the EU, but I accepted the result. I expressed my disappointment and confusion on social media, and my anger among friends. But I didn’t publicly call anyone any names, I didn’t publicly question anyone’s intelligence. That kind of reaction does not help, it only makes things worse. You may think you know better than ‘all those idiots’ that voted for the other guy – but they also think they know better than you. That’s why they voted the way they did. And let’s be honest – if the result had gone the other way, if your girl had won and it was currently *his* supporters screaming about a ‘rigged system’, wouldn’t you be telling them to jog on? Wouldn’t you be telling them to shut the hell up and accept the result? No? Really? You sure about that? Be honest, if not with me then with yourself. Your country now needs to heal from what has been a vicious, divisive few months. And the only way it will heal is if you all accept what has happened, come together again as friends and find a way to make it work for the best – not just for you, but for the rest of the world too. I wish the *United* States all the very best for the next four years. I hope they truly can be *united*. It may well be a bumpy ride, but the only way you, and the rest of us, will be in a better position in 2020 than we are right now, is if you do *unite*. There will be time for analysing “what went wrong” later. You have four years to work out why this candidate failed to appeal to so many voters. In the meantime, put aside your anger. Stop the name calling. Unite and move forward. For you. For your family. For your country. And for all of us.
Hypocrisy
If there’s one thing I hate more than anything else, it’s Marmite. But that aside, what I hate, really hate, particularly in public figures, is hypocrisy.
It’s Hard to Type With a Four Year Old in Your Lap
My poor little baby girl has been ill for the past week or so, and I think it’s quite telling about the relationship I have with her that whenever she hurts herself or she’s feeling unwell, she comes running to me.
The Mother of all Laughing Stocks
It’s sometimes (erroneously) referred to as “The Mother of All Parliaments”, can claim to date back to the late 1200’s and it’s the model for parliamentary democracy in large portions of the world (primarily the Commonwealth countries that gained independence from the British Empire). But today, at around 4:30pm, The House of Commons in the Palace of Westminster, became The Mother of all Laughing Stocks.Why? Because today a debate took place in which the elected Members discussed if the United Kingdom should ban a US Presidential candidate from entering the country. And regardless of what you think of his politics or some of the frankly outrageous things he’s said in the campaign so far, banning Donald J. Trump would be the most ridiculous thing this government could do. I mean, we’re talking about debating whether or not to allow the man who could end up being the leader of one of our major allies—some would say our biggest and most important ally—to set foot on these shores. Shores which, I should add, he owns a big chunk of and has invested heavily in. Look, don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the policies that DJT is espousing. And let’s be honest, the one that prompted the petition that has led to today’s debate is not only inflammatory, it’s completely unworkable. I mean, his policy is to ask people if they are Muslim before they enter the country and turn them away if they say yes. Because Islamic terrorists are not going to lie in order to get past the security on the way to blow themselves (and hundreds of innocents) up. Yeah, they are clearly too stupid to think of not telling the truth as a way of avoiding detection. But DJT’s policies are not the issue here. Nor is my opinion of them (on that I shall keep my own counsel—mostly). Who the citizens of the United States elect as their President is no more my business than who we elect as PM is theirs. The issue I’m concerned about is that one of the most respected debating chambers in the world, the chamber on which so much of the world modelled their own governance, is actually stooping so low as to debate banning this man—or indeed any man, woman or child—one the strength of an online petition. In case you didn’t know, the debate has come about because of the change.org e-petitions we have in the UK. If 100,000 people sign a petition on any topic, the subject has to be debated in Parliament. Which sounds like a good idea. It sounds like it’s increasing ‘access to democracy’ and ‘engagement in politics’, which can all agree is a good thing I’m quite sure. But, frankly, it’s crazy. Just think about the possibilities for a second. If 100,000 people signed a petition to make “The Way of the Jedi” a religion officially recognised by the state, it would have to be debated in parliament. If 100,000 people signed a petition insisting that the Muggle Prime Minister give way to the Minister for Magic at PMQs once a month, this would have to be debated in Parliament. Or if 100,000 people wanted to ban the potential President of the most powerful country in the world from getting off the plane at Heathrow, it would have to be debated in Parliament. As it happens, it wasn’t 100,000. It was 570,000. But that doesn’t make it any less stupid to debate this issue in parliament. It’s a waste of parliamentary time when there are so many other, more important issues, to be debated. Like solving the junior doctors strike, for example. Okay, so 570,000 sounds like a lot. But the population of the UK is 64.1 million, so it’s not even 1%. (It’s about 0.89%) And in any case, the 570,000 figure spread across two petitions, so it’s possible, if not highly likely, that the same people signed both petitions. And since all you need to sign one of these e-petitions is an e-mail address, and one person can claim as many of those as they like, there’s no way of knowing if people have ‘signed’ each petition multiple times or, indeed, how many times. And there’s no way of knowing if the people signing this are 14 year olds who seen it on Facebook and are doing it “for a laugh”. Or if the people signing it are doing so while living in Outer Mongolia or Darkest Peru. I’d be surprised if the actual number of actual real people, with an actual real vote in the UK General Election, who signed this thing was a lot, lot less than the 570,000 being quoted. But even that’s not massively important in the grand scheme of things. The real issue here is that this debate is symptomatic of a worrying trend in Britain, which is most evident on university campuses right now. As a firm believer in free speech—in that old notion that I don’t have to agree with what you’re saying to defend your right to say it—I’ve always thought that the best way to show up a ridiculous idea, is to allow it to be heard and subjected to the harsh glare of public scrutiny and debate. But increasingly people in this country—or, at least, a small, but very vocal, sub-section of people—seem to think that the best way to deal with ‘wrong-headed’ views, is to ban them from being heard altogether. Can anyone think of any societies that banned views that the ‘ruling elite’ didn’t agree with? What happened to those I wonder? Look, the best way to deal with someone talking utter bollocks, isn’t to not allow them to talk. It’s the exact opposite. You allow them to talk bollocks, then point out to those listening just what utter bollocks it is using reasoned debate and argument. You make the bollocks-talker look stupid for talking bollocks. You make people want to point and laugh and shout, “what utter bollocks”. That’s the reason we haven’t banned
The Importance of Team Sports
My son will be 10 at the end of December, and after several years of him asking to join a football team, I finally relented and found him a club for this season. (By football, I mean the game that is called “soccer” in some parts of the world—the one that’s actually played with one’s feet rather than one’s hands, hence the name. This is the first and last time you’ll hear me call it soccer)
“Arrow” Returns – But who’s in that Grave?
One of my favourite shows, Arrow, is back with a barnstorming season opener that ‘resets’ things after last year’s finale. Last year saw Oliver and Felicity driving off into the sunset together, leaving Starling City in the hands of Laurel, Thea and Diggle. This year opened with a glimpse into “Olicity’s” suburban, domestic bliss—that image of Flick sitting on the kitchen counter reading a book and prodding an omelette (as seen in the trailer below) will live in my memory for some time to come. But all too soon Thea and Laurel show up asking for help and by the end of the episode Oliver has been recast as “The Green Arrow”, offering to be the beacon of hope that plain old “The Arrow” never was. And with a nasty new super-villain on the scene, we’re all set for an exciting season, one that perhaps will bring some of the fun of the comic book to the screen (at last). But… This wouldn’t be “Arrow” if there wasn’t some pain for the protagonists on the horizon and that was offered up in the form of a six-month flash-forward scene at the end of the ep which sees Oliver crying over someone’s grave and vowing revenge. But who’s grave? That is the question. What follows are my thoughts on each of the candidates for a mid-season exit. The way I see it, there are five possible candidates, so let’s go through them. Starting with… Felicity Yes, Yes, I know. This is the most obvious one. After the way this season has started, could the writers possibly come up with a more heart-breaking way to send Oliver back to “the Darkness”? Imagine it, Oliver finally pops the question, they start making plans, then… Poof, she’s snatched away from him. Flick’s death is also the most likely to bring Barry Allen over from Central City (although I’d have thought he’d have actually made it to the funeral rather than miss it). However, I really don’t think the writers are this stupid. Flick is quite possibly the most popular character on the show, so popular that she’s done the impossible and transitioned from the TV show to the comic book. They’d have a bloody rebellion on their hands if they killed her off. I really don’t think that it’s Flick in that grave. Or maybe I just hope it’s not. Thea This is the next most obvious candidate, I think. Thea is the last remaining member of Olly’s family and killing her for good would certainly send him over the edge—just look at what it did to him last season even though he was able to bring her back! Plus, with Thea seemingly having lost all inhibitions and sense of danger and looking very much like The Arrow looked in season one—that is, willing to kill—she’s actually likely to find herself coming to a sticky end, perhaps by going off on some reckless quest on her own. But, again, I think the writer’s would be daft to kill off Thea. She’s utterly adorable, has been since day one. She’s also the connection to the world that Olly needs that gives him a reason to keep trying to save Star City. Without her, I think The Green Arrow might well lose his motivation. Laurel Now, here’s a character the writers could kill off that I’m sure the fans wouldn’t be at all upset about. Which is exactly why I don’t think they will. This is because she’s just starting to become interesting. Black Canary has a lot of potential, and I reckon the writers want to do all they can to realise it. Detective Lance Lance has already tipped his hand in the first episode of this season and made himself a prime candidate for being offed. It would make sense from a story point of view. And I could see Olly blaming himself for not stopping it. But Lance’s death isn’t going to leave him crying at the graveside. So while I don’t think Lance will survive the season, I don’t think he’s the one in that grave. Which brings us to… Diggle For three seasons he’s been The Arrow’s conscience, his wise counsel, his trusted mentor. But the trust they had, and the friendship they shared, was shattered at the end of season three. At the start of season four, the animosity is still there, the awkwardness in their relationship clear to see. Which is why it makes perfect sense for Diggle to bite the bullet. The Arrow no longer needs a big brother, a wise counsel. Diggle has, in that sense, served his purpose. But to watch them rebuild their relationship this year only for Diggle to be killed, really would be enough to set Olly on a path of revenge – and it would be a satisfying way for Diggle to bow out. Plus, Dig also has a history with H.I.V.E. and that history is what could lead to his death. Everything about this possibility makes sense. Which is why, even though I’d be sad to see him leave, I think it’s John Diggle in that grave. It’s speculation, of course. And there’s going to be a shit load of it from now on after every episode as the fans look for clues. But in the end, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
