For goodness sake (BNP)
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on June 11th, 2009
Labour Party plays into the hands of racist bigots.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
The trouble with politicians
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on June 2nd, 2009
It’s liberating. Or so I was told today. And the teller was right. It is.
But the line that triggered it is typically considered politician-poison. And why? Because we have a system which relies upon people who are not intelligent enough to listen to an argument before deciding whether the argument is cogent or not. That system, in case it’s not clear, is democracy using First Past The Post and political parties. Ya boo sucks and I’ll do what I like while wearing this red/blue/yellow rosette and see if you can do anything about it.
The sentence that caused the ‘It’s liberating’ comment?
“I don’t know anything.”
I could claim to know that I believe it is wrong to treat particular sections of society differently to others on the basis of some arbitrary feature or idiosyncrasy. But would I follow my argument to any logical conclusions or would I reach, at some philosophical point, a point where I would have to add a proviso?
If I was interviewed about my political beliefs I could not defend any pre-written ideology to the end. I could not claim to be more able to follow philosophical, moral, cultural or political arguments past the first few bends in the road than the next person. And, actually, very few people have ever been able to. It is why, actually, Greek philosophers and philosophers from a long time ago are still read, enjoyed and debated — there are no right answers.
Politicians in interviews inevitably end up not answering questions. It’s not because they’re stupid, more stupid than the interviewer or, even, because they’re wrong. It’s because it’s bloody hard to make a point that cannot be argued against. And the media that tries to trip politicians up isn’t helping push on the argument.
When a politician says “I believe gay marriage is fair” he’s saying that he does not believe in discriminating arbitrarily against homosexuals. He is not saying that he understands the cultural imperative of marriage (because I’m not sure I do), he’s not saying that it is wrong for a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) to cohabit, he’s not saying that he thinks that the bible is wrong or right, he’s not saying that everyone should like his opinion and he’s not saying “this is what my party thinks”…
He’s saying that he believes gay couples can be as in love as straight couples and they should be allowed to publicly express this in the same manner.
Okay, I know I went off on a tangent about homosexuality but I know it’s a particular divide between the so-called right and the so-called left.
Can we please stop employing interviewers who are after soundbites. Can we please stop quoting soundbites in the ‘news’. And can we please use the BBC (a public service broadcaster afterall) to remind people that at all elections except those to the EU ‘parliament’ we are voting for individuals not parties.
I am a Conservative Councillor but that doesn’t mean I agree with any more than a certain proportion of what David Cameron, John Redwood, Ken Clarke and William Hague believe. It doesn’t mean I agree with any more than a certain proportion of what Adur District Council’s leaders believe and it doesn’t mean that I can be pigeon-holed. In fact I am sure there are Liberal Democrat, UKIP and Green politicians who I share more beliefs with than I do with some Conservatives.
I stood for the Conservatives at the last election to my Ward in Adur and I am still pleased I did that. I shall make an announcement at some stage about my plans for next May (2010) when my seat will next be contested. But if I do contest that seat base your decision on me, not on my party affiliation and not on what the Council as a whole does or does not do (which is a whole other post).
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Better Off Out for June 2009
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 23rd, 2009
As in previous years, I think it is important to remind you about Better Off Out the campaign by The Freedom Association.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Christians and Conservativism
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 11th, 2009
I was discussing the seven deadly sins with some friends the other day. For those of you who don’t remember them, here they are in no particular order:
- Greed
- Envy
- Lust
- Gluttony
- Pride
- Wrath
- Sloth
Now having listed those, let me sling something into your consciousness: most right-wing parties in Europe and the Americas tend to be Christian parties.
Surely if right-wing parties are more often the home of Christians in politics, the policies of right-wing parties must suit those people’s morals? But doesn’t the ‘Loads-a-money’ caricature of 80s Conservativism stinks rather of gluttony, pride and envy?
In fact post-Thatcher Britain has been struck by all of these ’sins’. Aside from those with eating disorders, I would have thought that everyone has sinned with greed (and those with eating disorders, religion tells us with no hint of sympathy, have sinned with pride). Anyone who enters the lottery and does not intend on giving away all but what they ‘need’ has sinned with envy and would sin with gluttony. Everyone who has watched a football match and willed their own team on is verging on wrath.
I know of no man who has not noticed in an inappropriate way (for the sin of lust) an attractive woman (or man — although homosexuality and religion really don’t like being in the same sentence). And those of us with a mirror in their bathroom have at least a little pride.
In fact, of the ’sins’ on that list, wrath is best avoided (but is a character trait for some) and envy is truly unpleasant. Aside from those two, I would proudly admit to having committed them all!
Maybe Conservatives and Christians are similar in not thinking about some aspects of life in any detail: How many of us can name, for instance, a deeply religious (Christian) person who has not read the bible? How many of us can name a strongly Conservative person who would secretly admit to believing homosexuality is unnatural? I would suggest that both these positions are illogical and so fit well together in the same person.
New Testament Christians, if they agreed with Jesus tipping the tables in the synagogue, if they agreed that gluttony, greed and pride are sins, if they believe there’s something metaphysically bigger, really should be socialists or libertarians.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Trust the police with their new powers?
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on April 9th, 2009
No:
G20 police assault video
G20 police assault (other angle)
What a state the UK has come to where a Conservative feels the way I do.
(Although maybe that’s because I am an unusual Conservative).
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Blog holiday
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on April 7th, 2009
You may have noticed the blog is on a sort of holiday. Back soon.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
South Downs National Park
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on April 1st, 2009
I support the South Downs National Park.
But some Conservatives have adopted an odd position on the issue. They are against the Park because they believe that local Councils should be allowed to maintain planning controls over their local areas without the interference of the government and/or those who run the Park.
This is befuddling because of two issues:
1. The public clearly support the South Downs being a National Park and so, against the run of play, they are putting political opinion above vote-buying. I’d be impressed except that the Conservatives against the Park are wrong:
2. Local Councils do not have planning controls.
Let me explain (2).
First, people think it is a good thing that elected people help make planning decisions. I think not, actually, given the current framework. The grounds for granting or denying permission are very specific. There is little lee-way within the rules to refuse an application that the public are strongly and demonstrably against. If a Council has the audacity to deny an application on non-planning grounds then after a potentially expensive appeal the decision will likely go the way of the applicant. And to hell with the opinions of the people or the people they have elected to represent them.
Second, I am not convinced that Joe Public vote for politicians; they pathetically vote for the colour of the rosette in an almost tribal fashion. I am convinced that in the vast majority of so-called ’safe’ seats, a homophobic, racist, misogynist could get elected for any of the three major parties in local government. In fact, looking at many Councillors, the public clearly have no idea what they’re voting for.
How can the public trust local Councils to protect the South Downs when it is run by illogical people with too much spare time who, in any case, do not have the power that they would need.
Any Councillor who, if they read this, thinks I am talking about them can safely assume I am — but know that I am not talking about all or even the majority of Councillors in any particular area. And those who do not fit this description also know who they are.
A National Park is the only way to protect the South Downs from SEEDA and from impossible decisions foisted upon local Councils.
I will leave you with a final thought. Wealden District Council denied planning permission for a disabled soldier’s bungalow application. Do you think the Councillors when making that decision thought to themselves “Sod him, he fought for Queen and country, but rules are rules” or do you think that, hamstrung by rules from outside, they made the only decision they could? So much for democratic accountability.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
10 Downing Street on Scotophilia
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on March 31st, 2009
The government have responded naively to a petition on the 10 Downing Street website.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Is this racist?
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on March 26th, 2009
Speaking live on air on Tuesday, Sir David said: “What do you call a Pakistani cloakroom attendant?”
After a pause, he said: “Mahatma coat.”
From the BBC.
It’s a play on the word “Mahatma” which is from Sanskrit meaning “great soul” and personally I would associate Sanskrit more with the rest of the subcontinent where Hinduism is the primary religion. But this is a joke that I would consider normal conversation among my relatively ‘diverse’ (to use an unpleasant doublespeak word) peer group — why are the rules different on the radio?
Surely a racist joke should be in some way critical of the other culture or racial group?
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Hannan vs. Brown KO
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on March 24th, 2009
If you watch one Youtube video this year, watch this:
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
