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:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Colin Vane on June 2nd, 2009 - 9:45 pm
Gav,
Whilst I agree with the broad sentiment of your comments, I believe that you are, at best over simplifying the case, and at worst naive. As an elected councillor, you are a product of the party system. Much as you’re a personable character, how likely is it that you would have been elected if you didn’t have a party machine behind you to campaign on your behalf and to give you a convenient label for electors to have an idea of what you stand for? Like it or not, the party label (or pigeon hole) is a convenient shorthand that helps electors distinguish you from your opposition. Even in a district council ward it is almost impossible to get your personal views across to a significant proportion of electors without a small army of helpers. How much more difficult must it be in a parliamentary election. Richard Taylor and Martin Bell were exceptions, but they were elected on single issues and marginalised such that they didn’t really have any impact on matters outside of their primary declared interest. Although technically we may be voting for indiduals, those individuals are inevitably defined by their party labels, and anyone without such a label severely reduces their chances of success.
As for media interviewers, they might stop looking for soundbites when interviewees stop trying to declaim their soudbites at every available opportunity. The BBC might stop broadcasting soundbites when the rest of the media desist from the practice, but that will only happen when the likes of you and me stop demanding our news in pre-digested packages that require no effort to assimilate. Arguably, the plethora of available media today puts us in a better position to look behind the headlines and soundbites. How many of us do so? We have the media we deserve and therefore the politicians we deserve.
#2 by Gav on June 3rd, 2009 - 4:18 pm
I do understand that people didn’t vote for me — they voted for the blue rosette but it is the fault of the party machines that I had to.
The expenses scandal has presented us with a unique opportunity to fundamentally reform the system. It won’t happen of course, but if it did…
We could have a ban on political parties and whips. We could have recall on all elected representatives all voted for on a single transferable vote or other fairer proportional representation system. These decisions could be made by holding sub-regional town-hall sessions where *real* debate could help decide the decision locally before a national referendum. But it won’t happen.
We may deserve the quality of the media, but we are not deserving of an enforced de-facto rolling LibLabCon dictatorship. I am not convinced that I know whether the media or the politicians are the chicken or the egg, never mind which came first!
And I would not trust an army of helpers to know what I would stand for, what I would break with the party whip over etc.
#3 by jameshigham on June 4th, 2009 - 1:45 pm
Become a Christian and all will be well, Gav.
#4 by Gav on June 5th, 2009 - 10:17 pm
I am thinking of a post on that subject actually James. You may be pleasantly surprised.
#5 by Kalebarkab on June 10th, 2009 - 11:16 am
I want to find good pop music. Help me please.
#6 by Gav on June 10th, 2009 - 6:03 pm
@Kalebarkab Such a random comment that I had to approve. Use Spotify.
#7 by jameshigham on June 11th, 2009 - 11:49 am
What is your view on homosexuality, Gav?
#8 by Gav on June 11th, 2009 - 10:46 pm
I don’t have a ‘view’ on homosexuality any more than I have a ‘view’ on heterosexuality. It is an intrinsic part of the person that they are sexually attracted to people who are the same sex as they are.
#9 by jameshigham on June 14th, 2009 - 11:16 am
Right.
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.
Right again.
#10 by Cheap HIPS on June 16th, 2009 - 9:29 am
Why we choose that kind of politician who not even give an answer of simple question.