Ceci n'est pas un blog
Politics & Community
Save the crêperie!
May 19th
The best café at Sussex University is facing closure. Do sign up to show your support. However, I was intrigued by this comment:
In a letter to Michael Farthing, one member of university staff wrote: “I feel that many people amongst the predominantly left-wing community at this university will be offended at the shutting down of a thriving independent café, to create a forced monopoly of institutional food with negative impacts on many people’s lives.”
What does “left-wing” mean in this context? Surely any true left-wingers should be entirely in favour of enforced state ownership and equality (of outcome) and opponents of an open competitive market? Or does “left-wing” mean “right-wing” now? (Tom, what do you think? Not sure anyone else will read this far!)
Defending first-past-the-post?
May 14th
Just read Is this the time for electoral reform? on Times Online, in which Ken Ritchie, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, says “Yes”, and Lord Norton of Louth, Professor of Government at the University of Hull and a Conservative peer, says “No”. I want to comment on that word “No”.
Those two simple letters encapsulate an argument that goes something like this. (1) The electorate would always prefer a single-party majority government to a minority or coalition government. (2) First-past-the-post (FPTP), our current electoral system, is more likely to produce a single-party majority government, and is therefore better at reflecting the will of the electorate.
In response to (1), is it really the case that the majority of voters in the last election would have preferred a majority Conservative government to what we currently have? That is the implication. Let’s test it out. Let’s ask a typical Lib Dem voter: “Given the choice between two alternatives, and only two alternatives, would you prefer a majority Conservative government or a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition?” The answer: “Coalition.” Now here’s a typical Labour voter: “Coalition.” QED. The electorate would not always prefer a single-party majority government to a minority or coalition government.
In response to (2), if the chief advantage of FPTP is that it distorts the wishes of the electorate so as to produce a single-party government with an overall majority, then are proponents of FPTP open to considering alternative voting systems that similarly distort the wishes of the electorate? Why not have an STV election, with all of its advantages, and then selectively replace successful Liberal Democrat candidates with unsuccessful Conservative and/or Labour candidates? That would produce the same desired effect (a single-party majority government), and could be done in such a way as to overcome some of the undesirable outcomes of the last election, such as the following, from Ken Richie’s piece:
On May 6 the Conservatives won only one of Scotland’s 59 seats. In the eastern region, Labour won only two of the 58 seats. Yet one in five Scots backed the Conservatives, and the same proportion of voters wanted Labour in the East of England. That’s what representative democracy means under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.
I think it’s time for a change.
On The Christian Institute’s Election Briefing
Apr 25th
How should Christians vote in the General Election?
That’s not an easy question to answer. Politics is messy, government is messy, politicians and political parties are messy. Many issues are involved, and it can be daunting to wade through them all, weighing one cause against another, and deciding which option (if any) is most worthy of one’s support.
That is where Christian organisations can be a great help. One such organisation is The Christian Institute, which (in my opinion) does a fantastic job at highlighting and campaigning on certain moral issues that affect the UK political and legal scene today.
Within the last couple of weeks The Christian Institute has launched their Election Briefing for 2010, with the laudable intention of helping Christian “voters reach an informed decision on how to cast their vote” on 6 May.
Here’s my summary of the document
- Christians should decide how to vote in the 2010 General Election on the basis of “three touchstone issues”: “religious liberty, the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of human life” (p. 5, 7). Other issues exist, but are much less important.
- The parties’ track records and manifesto pledges should be examined on these issues.
- However, Christians should find out what their own local candidates think about these issues, rather than just looking at the parties, as some candidates do not toe the “party line”.
There follows an evaluation of the major parties, and their policies on these issues. In short, this is how the parties perform (let the reader decide which he/she thinks is the “least worst option” [sic.—twice!—p.3, 8]):
- Labour: mostly abysmal
- Conservative: mostly good (though bad in some areas and allowing a free vote in many others)
- Liberal Democrat: largely dreadful
- SNP: mixed but often good
- Plaid Cymru: mixed
Brief descriptions are given for:
- UKIP: fairly good
- Green: pretty awful
- The Christian Party: very good
- Christian Peoples Alliance: very good
What are we to make of all this? Some comments:
- The narrow focus of the Election Briefing is nothing short of shocking. What about the economy, criminal justice, healthcare, education, the environment, international order, race relations, tax and benefits, employment and housing, to pick a few examples? Is God even remotely interested in any of these? Reading the Election Briefing, one could be forgiven for thinking that these issues are completely irrelevant and should have no bearing on where we put the cross on the ballot paper. Why is that? “When it comes to the economy, Christians can legitimately disagree about the best way to tackle the UK’s deficit” (p. 5). But “The issues we have highlighted are those where we believe the Bible is clear” (p. 4). So Christians should leave complex issues to one side—however important these issues are, however close they are to the heart of God—and instead should focus on a few clear, black-and-white moral issues. Admittedly, there is a thin veneer in the Briefing acknowledging the existence of these weightier matters, but where can I go to find more? Which Christian organisations have produced material to help me understand these? Where is the “Further Reading” section? Where are the tools to enable me to evaluate policies on these issues?
- In some cases, the approach to the narrow range of issues is itself questionable. For example, “Easy divorce laws have led to a lax attitude to marriage” (p.6). Or has a lax attitude to marriage led to easy divorce laws? If it is primarily the latter (and I suspect it is), then I see no reason to believe that good divorce laws will lead to a better attitude to marriage. Good laws are to be preferred to bad laws, of course, and Christians should be campaigning and voting for good laws to be made, but we are fighting a losing battle if we think that the statute book is an effective means to shape the attitudes of society. Maybe there are bigger fish to fry in this election?
How will you decide on how to vote?
Red, green or blue?
Mar 23rd
Right, I’m going to do something very countercultural, so hold tight. No, don’t worry, I’m not going to leave Facebook or switch my mobile phone off. More radical than that: I’m going to tell you how I’m planning to vote in the next election.
Brighton Pavilion constituency, in which I live, is a three-way marginal between the Labour, Conservative and Green parties. I’m backing the Green Party candidate. Here’s why.
- Like many, I find myself disillusioned with Labour and the Conservatives. Nothing excites me less than another parliamentary term under one or the other. I want to see real change, and for me that means a hung parliament after the next election, with greater representation for the smaller parties, and a gradual shift of power away from the Lab-Con establishment (or, more likely, a serious reform of one or both of those parties).
- The Green Party is a significant force in British politics, with numerous Green councillors and two Green MEPs. However, of the 646 seats in the Commons, not one is occupied by a Green Party representative. This is a consequence of our silly “first-past-the-post” voting system. Now, even though I don’t agree with all of their policies, I’m not a Green Party member, and I don’t think I’d want a Green Government, I do want there to be a Green voice in the Commons. That can happen only if they get a majority of the votes in at least one constituency. Brighton Pavilion is their best chance yet, and a very realistic chance at that.
- There are many things I like about the Green Party. I’ve been very impressed with the local party, its members and councillors, and think they are doing a great job at making Brighton a better place. There’s a certain freshness, authenticity and transparency to the way the party functions. Their policies are much wider than environmental issues and I like the sound of a lot of them (for example, they don’t idolize the free market economy).
- Caroline Lucas MEP, the party leader and their candidate for Brighton Pavilion, has been on the BBC twice this week, and has confirmed what I thought already, that she is an able, intelligent and articulate politician with great integrity. But you can judge for yourself: Question Time (available for ages), and Straight Talk (available for the next few days).
Anyway, enough of this crazy political stuff…
Brighton going Green?
Feb 5th
I’m quite excited about this General Election thing. For one thing, struggling to overcome my very British apathy and cynicism, I’m beginning to find politics vaguely interesting. And I find myself in one of the most interesting constituencies for the coming election. A Conservative stronghold from its creation in 1950 until 1997, the Brighton Pavilion seat was gained by Labour in 1997. With the current MP due to retire, many people consider the frontrunner to be Caroline Lucas MEP, the leader of the Green Party. And, for the first time ever for a UK parliamentary seat, the shortlist is going to be all female, with the four major parties all fielding female candidates. Here’s a video about the situation from the Guardian’s Comment is free pages:
Free speech
Nov 12th
Photo by lewishamdreamer
As a Bible-believing Christian, I am deeply committed to freedom of expression and to tolerance (for example, of those with whom I deeply disagree).
I’m talking about the freedom to believe something, and the freedom to express those beliefs – of course, with the proviso that those beliefs are not expressed with the intention to threaten, to cause abuse or to incite violence or any other criminal activity.
But it seems I am in a minority. Certainly I would be, in the House of Commons. The House of Lords previously secured the place of a “free speech” clause in the legislation for the recently-introduced homophobic hatred offence (an amendment tabled by Lord Waddington). This has been vigourously opposed by the Government, who are now trying to remove this clause. Here is the wording the Government finds so objectionable:
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.
From the government’s determined efforts to remove these words from the statute books, one may conclude that the Government would like it to be the case that if I merely express the belief that certain sexual conduct is wrong, then that may, of itself, be taken to be a “hate crime”.
Just think for a moment about what this means. Does no one believe in freedom of speech any more? Sure, my beliefs may be utterly repugnant, but should it be illegal for me to discuss them with anyone? Seriously?
Thank God for our unelected representatives in the House of Lords, who at least seem to believe in democracy and freedom of expression. But if the government has its way, we’re certainly going to see more cases like this and this.
What do you think? Is freedom of speech worth fighting for? Or are there some beliefs that are so obnoxious that it should be illegal to express them, under any circumstances?
Freecycle Brighton recycled?
Sep 12th
I’ve been using Freecycle Brighton for a few years now. Since I blogged about it in 2006, I’ve successfully used it to get rid of an upright piano, a table or two, a printer, an old drum kit, around 100 chairs, a fridge, a sofa and a few bookcases, as well as obtaining and subsequently getting rid of a bed or two. No idea how I managed to accumulate that much stuff.
Anyway, it seems that Freecycle has not been free from power-hungry leadership, and now the UK groups and moderators seem to be escaping from the heavy-handed control of the Freecycle overlord(s) in the USA.
Or that’s the impression I get from the report in the Guardian, particularly the comments section. More on the Freecycling blog and on the Brighton Freecycle Cafe group…
FreecycleBrighton has worked spectacularly well, but it seems to have suffered a possibly serious blow. The Yahoo! group has been closed down by the moderators, and group members were directed to GreenCycleSussex as the new group. At the last count, this has 494 members. But of the 16,000(?) former FreecycleBrighton members, those 3000 or so who signed up through the “official” Freecycle page are still there, freecycling away, quite possibly unaware of all the rumblings that have taken place. And other groups are springing up, such as freebrighton.
Similar action is being taken by many UK Freecycle groups, reconvening under the name Freegle.
All a bit of a mess really. I’m minded to go with the Green Cycle Sussex group for now, out of principle. But if that doesn’t work out, then I might (very reluctantly) succumb to the official group, this time out of a different principle.
Update 21 Sep 2009: the Freecycle Brighton group page (also available as www.freebrighton.org) now states explicitly that it is “no longer affiliated with the US freecycle network”.
Update 8 Oct 2009: following legal pressure from “The Freecycle Network (TM)”, the Freecycle Brighton Yahoo! group has now been renamed FreeBrighton.
How to vote ethically
Aug 26th
I know nothing about politics. Okay, I know what I think about a few controversial moral issues, but the rest – the other 99% or so – is a complete mystery to me.
But I’m glad I’m not alone, as Joseph Bloggs demonstrates in this promotional video for the Jubilee Centre‘s new book, Votewise Now!
Advice to an archbishop
Feb 9th
So in a lecture Rowan Williams, admittedly in a display of “political ineptitude”, makes some carefully reasoned and apparently reasonable (if obfuscatory) suggestions about how a single, unitary legal system (same laws for every citizen) might accommodate a diversity of religious and cultural practices on “certain carefully selected matters”. Then what happens?
For a thoughtful analysis we can turn to David Field. Inane reactions are less difficult to find: “Arch enemy: bash the bishop … in a damning You The Jury poll [b]y last night, 14,683 had called for his dismissal. Just 631 said he should stay”, “barrage of criticism”, “fatuous remarks”.
And we turn up our noses when some Muslims react violently to an academic lecture by the Pope.
So my advice to Dr Williams, if he is reading, is this: keep it simple. If you can’t make your point in half a dozen monosyllabic words, just don’t say anything. Don’t expect us to make an effort really to understand you. We won’t. And be warned: if you get it wrong, we might form a mob and stone you (albeit with sponges).
I am a research fellow in 
Loading ...
