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.

Skip advert

Offensive material: The site linked to below is definitely for mature people only.

So back to my original point:

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).