Peace and goodwill, even to politicians
I tuned into BBC Parliament for Prime Minister's Questions today (Weds 22nd December) but was disappointed. I was looking forward to some sharp exchanges about the two inquiries into David Blunkett but I'd forgotten that the Commons broke up (or "rose") for Christmas the previous day.
I suppose you could argue that it was pretty handy timing, and mutter darkly that the government had "got at" Budd and Mawer, but you could also take the view that even politicians need a break from the relentless sniping and antagonism that characterises modern politics.
I sometimes wonder why anyone would ever want to be an MP these days. I certainly wouldn't. But looking at the MPs who have taken their seats in the last few years, you could hazard a guess that it's not because they have strong convictions and dynamic ideas for reshaping society. Most seem pretty vacuous in this area, quite incapable of expressing their opinions clearly, and unable to speak out when their conscience is at odds with the party line. It would seem that "being an MP" is itself the real desire, with the status and financial rewards that it brings. The daily task therefore is to do whatever is necessary to keep the position. It is a purely defensive role. If it requires the MP to vote against his or her conscience, to utter simpering support, or simply to keep silent, then so be it. If you find yourself on a committee, your conclusions must be favourable to your party, never mind the rights and wrongs of the issues under consideration. Protect the party and protect your seat, whatever the cost.
One result of all this is that political battles are now fought not on issues, but on personalities, and the bigger the personality, the better. Does anyone really care what some unknown junior minister gets up to? Not at all. But if it's a political "heavyweight" such as David Blunkett, then clear the decks and man the guns, a battle is looming.
The battles, though, are still not fought in the House. They are fought in the newspapers, with ever more salacious releases of gossip and tittle tattle. If you can't win the argument, win their sympathy. So, with David Blunkett, we know he did wrong, but he cares for his children and has a nice dog, so dishonesty and adultery don't really matter, he's a nice guy.
However, it is the season of goodwill, so enjoy a rest all you politicians. And think about what you've done to politics...
Speaking freely...
The play about rape in a Sikh temple has been cancelled in Birmingham following protests from the Sikh community. The consequent debate has been interesting.
Many have complained that the right to free speech is being trampled on. I find this attitude particularly curious, in that these people are objecting to the Sikhs' equal right to freely voice a dissenting opinion. Surely this is democracy, where someone freely says something, and someone else freely disagrees? No one was prosecuted for what they said, no one forced the theatre to cancel; it was a commercial decision not to continue with something that was getting them unwelcome attention, that might threaten future revenue.
Another argument was that there have been plays which have been offensive to Christianity, and "we had to put up with that", so therefore it is only fair that the Sikhs should now suffer in silence. This is a ridiculous argument. The Christians could, and should, have taken a similar stand to the Sikhs in the past, and certainly ought to consider it in the future.
I was impressed by the Sikhs who were interviewed on television. They stated that they supported freedom of speech, then defended their own views clearly and reasonably. It struck me that their attitude captured the very best of what it used to mean to be "British".
Playwrights long to leave their mark on society. Perhaps this playwright should rejoice that what he was unable to achieve on the stage was more than compensated by the impact made outside the theatre door.
Lickey End is NOT London...
Government transport policy is all very well, but not everyone enjoys the same public transport infrastructure as our friendly MPs in London. In Lickey End - yes, it is a real place - it is virtually impossible to manage without a car. The local town, Bromsgrove, is about mile and a half away, but there are no buses there. The train station is a mile outside of Bromsgrove, thanks to vested interests in the 19th century, and the destinations that can be reached are limited.
So say I want to go to London without using my car. I have a longish walk into town, another walk or a bus ride to the station, a train journey into Birmingham, and another train journey to London. And then I have to find my destination. You can imagine the time that this takes, the expense and the inconvenience. As an alternative, I can get in my car, go half a mile up the road to the M42, and be in London two hours later.
It's not as if we are out in the sticks. Lickey End is 12 miles from Birmingham, but we may as well be in the middle of the Asian steppes as far as public transport is concerned. Yet each government persists with a one-size-fits-all policy to stop people using cars without first providing a decent alternative. You wonder whether the real motive is to change behaviour or simply to raise revenue by making cars more expensive, yet at the same time more necessary.
What they are doing is not even logical. If they raise the road tax I am likely to use the car more, not less, because I will want to get my money's worth. If they raise fuel duty then fares rise too. At the moment, public transport is almost always more expensive than using my car. A typical short journey is around two pounds, twice the cost of the fuel in my car. A train journey to London costs thirty to ninety pounds, depending on the time of travel.
It particularly irks me that London commuter rail fares are subsidised from general taxation. Why should I pay to reduce a Londoner's travel costs, especially when provision in Lickey End is so inadequate?
Perhaps the policy makers, with their ministerial cars and 57p per mile allowances should try using public transport outside London for a while. Can you imagine John and Pauline Prescott waiting at the bus stop with armfuls of carrier bags after a trip to the supermarket? Or Tony Blair taking two buses to get from his home to his constituency office? Of course not. They would declare themselves to be "a special case".
Parish the thought
Lickey End is a lovely place, but it can seem a little confused about its identity at times. When I tell people where I live, they either snigger because the name sounds rude, or gasp in awe that I live so close to the fabled Lickey Incline (the steepest bit of railway line in the country) and the marvellous Tardebigge Tunnel (the longest flight of canal locks in the country). Or they just look blank.
When I tell those whom I shall uncharitably term "anoraks" that I have never been on the local railway, or, until recently, walked along the canal, they look dumbfounded, as if I had been offered and refused the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps it's just that being so close, they lose their aura. If you had to pick out the things that characterised or formed the identity of Lickey End, most locals wouldn't include the proximity to the railway or the canal. It seems that the Parish Council would also fall into a black hole.
Lickey End didn't use to have a parish council. Perhaps we're not part of a parish? As a Baptist I wouldn't know, but I would have thought that everyone belongs to some parish. Be that as it may, we didn't have a parish council, but then some bright spark thought that we ought to have one, and petitioned the District Council who duly organised a referendum. Having got a majority for the council, it was duly established. This is where it gets confusing. You would have thought that the referendum indicated broad support for the new parish council, but it doesn't seem that way, for when the elections for parish councillors was organised, several people stood as the "Anti-Parish Council Party", whose manifesto was to seek abolition of the council. Amazingly, they won the very first election, despite the referendum, so we now have a parish council who are dedicated to doing nothing but their minimum statutory duties, spending no money, and seeking the dissolution of the newly-formed Lickey End Parish Council, which, I understand, has now been agreed in principle.
Perhaps this is the malaise of the 21st century, that we don't know what we want, but we are going to make sure we get it.
Blunkett gets the benefit of the doubt
Sir Alan Budd reports on the 'fast-tracking' of David Blunkett's lover's nanny's visa. I don't normally read the reports in detail, but trust the BBC and major newspapers to give me the information I need. Today I read the actual report, and it made me question whether I can trust the BBC and the press in general, and civil servants in particular.
The report showed an amazing willingness to accept the accounts of senior civil servants that they could not remember what actually happened. This might be accepted and forgiven in one or two cases, but nearly 20 civil servants had the same problem about this particular case, which strains credulity to the limits. Yet Alan Budd seems happy to accept it, pointing out that he has no evidence to the contrary. Well he wouldn't, would he? You can't "prove" that someone does or does not remember something. But you can - surely? - express surprise that no one, absolutely no one, out of all the people involved remembers anything?
What particularly surprised me was the way that he picked and chose the "facts" in a way that aided David Blunkett. Blunkett stated publicly and unambiguously that he did various things which might with hindsight be considered foolish or inappropriate, such as asking civil servants to check out forms. Yet when his ex-lover, Kimberly Quinn, said that she could not recollect these events, Alan Budd takes the view that Blunkett's previously clear memory must be faulty and her hazy lack of recollection must be taken as truth. In every instance, this seemed helpful to Mr Blunkett.
I am particularly disturbed that it seems there is no longer any real expectation of getting to the truth. The "truth" is now simply whatever the government and the civil servants want us to hear. Not so long ago, an investigation of any sort was dreaded by politicians because they knew that civil servants would answer questions honestly. That fear seems to have gone, because these public "servants" now serve the politicians rather than the public. Or perhaps they serve themselves by seeming to help the politicians. Either way, it is unedifying and worrying.
Look around at any dictatorship. In every case the civil service has been subverted and bent to the will of the leader. We're not in a dictatorship yet, but we're laying the groundwork.
