LOVE = DISCIPLINE

So what issue is it that has brought me back to the blogosphere? What burning dilemma had me pick up my laptop in haste? Well... I last night had the dubious fortune to be present as my wife watched a fly-on-the-wall programme tracking the life and times of one Peter Andre; singer, presenter, former wife of Katie Price and ‘Dad of the Year’ in both 2008 and 2010. And it is that last point that engaged my interest. Never mind the lunacy of the Now-reading public making such an arbitrary judgement, nor even why we are applauding one who sets up a TV camera prior to phoning his kids and places them in weekly photo-shoots and documentary’s in order to further his own career. No what has really got my goat is actually the criteria by which people are judging what it is to be a good parent.

For the prosecution I bring before you Case One, from last night’s show. Junior – Andre’s son – was, as usual, misbehaving in the spoilt, petulant manner in which he’s been raised. Charmingly for a 5-year old, Junior replied to an attempted instruction by his father with the televised retort ‘If he tells me that again, I’ll cut his head off’. Peter, upon hearing this, looked very sad and whined back “Junior, why do you say these things? You know it makes me upset”. Junior then hid under a desk, at which his dad apologised to him, in order to entice him back out to reconcile. The scene ended with the two hugging and each saying sorry; the backing music and voiceover made it abundantly clear that this was a happy ending to the scene and an example of the loving hands-on way that Dad of the Year Peter resolves such family issues.

Now I’m not disputing that this chap loves his kids. But WHERE IS THE DISCIPLINE?? Where is the incentive for this child to not threaten to kill his father next time? Where’s the lesson learned? Ultimately it gained him the attention he was seeking, along with an apology and a cuddle to boot. There is a missing stage here – any type of sanction. It’s worrisome because the public, en masse, are praising this approach (I’ve watched more of the programme than I should willingly admit, and this pattern; of rebellion, non-punishment and cuddles is repeated in every episode). Neither is it unique to Peter Andre – we are all too familiar with the US movie/TV staple of the parent who scolds the child, sees the child turn away or run from the room and at once apologises, explaining the true underlying reason for his/her inexcusable hostility. WHERE IS THE DISCIPLINE? Why has it become so unthinkable to upset children? They’re not fragile little dolls – they’re little humans, often characterised by rebellion, cruelty even, and very soon to be a grown-up for many more years than they were a child.

A few provisos – no I’m not a parent, and therefore have little authority on the issue of parenting. But I have been a teacher for 7 years. We pick up the pieces of this widespread syndrome – of the parents who spoil their kids rotten, allow them to treat mum and dad like mates and who know all their rights but none of their responsibilities or obligations. Parents all too often take Little Jonny’s side if he’s accused or sanctioned; they tactily (or overtly) encourage a culture of answering back, questioning every instruction and worsening, by degree, attitudes and behaviours in my, and every, school. Another proviso is that I’m not an arch-disciplinarian as a teacher, and I wouldn’t want to be seen as pretending otherwise. I smile and banter in lessons, encouraging discussion and trying to utilise informal humour. But it’s getting harder to do that, because it requires knowing where the line is, listening to others and treating them with respect. What’s more it’s only possible to do that if kids feel secure in knowing where the boundaries are; that there will be well-established punishments from me if someone behaves in a disruptive and unsettling fashion. Of late, there’s been an increasing number of groups where I have had to resort to the snarl and silence I don’t enjoy. It represents an increase in boys (I have until now taught in all-boys school) who have never learned the discipline required for more productive interaction.

If and when I am a parent I will endeavour to be stricter than many might expect or encourage. Rebellion, at any age, is a conscious decision and has to be acknowledged as such, with consequences attached. Just as with teaching, any sanction promised (‘if you do a, b will happen’) has to be followed through with . Easier said than done? Egg waiting to be landed on my face? Quite possibly... who knows my reality once it happens? But I do know that, were it not for a society that has ruled such things unacceptable, I would certainly tell off other peoples’ kids a lot more, in order to save myself doing it later once they’re a problematic teenager sitting in my classroom! The single most inspiring thing I’ve ever heard in the realm of parenting is from my pastor (whose kids are accordingly a credit) whose no-doubt misquoted approach basically comes down to ‘unmistakeable love, unyielding discipline’. It translates to lots of affection and cuddles every day, but no wrongdoing unpunished! I would suggest that, so long as he remains only half way there, Peter Andre is a less inspiring model to emulate...

PS I have spent some time this weekend with the children of one or two potential readers. Please know this is NO reflection on you and them – just on Peter Andre! In the case of the Bristol-based toddler I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday, the issue of discipline is particularly non-applicable as she behaved like a dream for the entire three hours we were there! The parents are clearly doing something right...

Hung Parliament = Angry Andy

I know that any point made about the current political deadlock is instantly rendered obsolete by the next hours’ events. However, I’m currently an angry and disillusioned sort – so let me underline a few reasons why…


1. I’m angry with the left.
I can’t abide the revisionism that sees many of my peers state that:

• This was a victory for ‘the left’ over ‘the right’. It wasn’t. Three largely similar and largely centrist parties competed. One of the got almost as many seats as the other two put together. One of them made their biggest electoral gains for almost a century (bigger than Churchill or Thatcher) whilst the other two went backwards. Yes it’s true that they failed to get an overall majority, but then Labour and the Lib Dems failed to get that even when combined! And had Labour got the same share of the vote, they’d have increased their majority of 2005 (see below).

• The left have the force of moral good. There’s been a markedly quasi-religious zeal to all online pronouncements about the need to keep out the evil Tories in order to pursue compassionate, progressive Labour policies. What nonsense. Did anyone else live through the past two terms? Yes, New Labour were once New (much of what was new was their embracing of the market, privatisation and the middle class) and showed that in pursuing devolution, revamping schools/hospitals etc. But that was a long time ago. For a long time they’ve been the party of war, banker bailouts (necessary? If so, the lack of accompanying conditions or reforming legislation wasn’t…) and an increasing gap between rich and poor. They had no interest in electoral reform, tried to scrap the preferential lowest tax bracket, put up NI and racked up a debt mountain to ensure misery (sure to hit the poorest hardest) for years to come. Quite aside from whether I believe the state itself to be inherently a force for good (I don’t), this Labour party long ago deemed ‘socialism’ a dirty word.

• The Tories are evil. No they’re not. What they mean is that Thatcher was evil. Thatcherism isn’t mainstream conservatism; it was new, radical and ultimately combined right wing nationalism, social conservatism and hard-edged market liberalism. That’s not Tory tradition nor the Tory present. A hundred years ago, politicians could move comfortably between the Tory and the Liberal Party. The Conservatives had a One Nation tradition of social justice, as viewed, for example, in the many reforms of the 1820s and upheld in the likes of the Tory Reform Group or ResPublica. Yes I know Cameron isn’t the greatest advocate of this – his ‘hug-a-hoody’ or cycle to work seem contrived. But neither is he Thatcher, and much of the assumption otherwise is just good old class hatred towards him as an old Etonian.

• The Tories should be cut out of a ruling coalition. It’s astonishing what lengths people will go to in order to cut out ‘the enemy’. It would be enough of an issue if the Lib-Labs did have enough seats to do it. But to rope in various Scots/Welsh nationalists and start dishing out funding-protection promises and all sorts… Never mind that clinging on to discredited power under an unelected leader would be the very worst thing for Labour themselves.

2. I’m angry with the right.
The good news as I write, that Lib-Tory talks have resumed and the Labour coup may have failed, takes something of the edge off this section. Nevertheless, it has been exasperating to see the Old Fogey Tories stamping their feet and protesting bitterly at any Liberal role largely because a) Europe is evil b) Immigrants are evil c) Electoral reform is evil and d)Lib Dems don’t understand the above. Various grass-root dinosaurs have threatened to hand in their membership and the right-wing press have been as noxious as ever. If there’s to be any chance of me sustaining my Tory dalliance it will be very much in the ‘Red Tory’ camp – basically positive on immigration, open to reform, even-handed in international relations (US/Europe, Israel/Palestine), prioritising social welfare – but looking to community institutions, Christian values and seeking a framework of fiscal responsibility; not entrusting everything to the wasteful, paranoid state. If reactionary factions out-manoeuvre Cameron and force him to become more like his horrible European allies… well then this was a one-night stand.

3. I’m angry with the middle.
The Liberal Democrats are a strange breed. Spurning all goodwill with their endless vacillations; putting everyone off electoral reform for evermore as the turgid behind-closed-doors wheeler-dealing drags endlessly on. They seem as uncomfortable as they should with playing kingmaker following a performance of disastrous underachievement and anticlimax.
Politically, they seem to have become a one-trick pony, pinning everything on attaining some sort of proportional representation. However, they must realise that the chances of them actually winning a referendum on bringing it about are fast receding, as the country begins wishing for the strong and decisive government they once bemoaned. They must also accept that reform includes equalising constituency sizes… as ridiculous as their own low number of seats is that an opposite vote share of 36% for Labour and 29% for Conservatives would have seen a three-figure majority for the former. Above all, this was the Lib Dems’ time; they blew it and they’re blowing it still (and this written as someone who has long supported electoral reform).
Incidentally, I know my politics are basically centrist on most things… but in a way this is the party I could least comfortably join; as has become clear online it’s the haven for the modern atheistic, politically correct, eco-warrior…

Grrrrrr!!! It’s frustrating because I don’t want to be an endless floating voter (I’ve voted for all three in general elections now!). I want someone I can campaign for (or maybe even one day stand for?!). How long the Littlest Political Hobo?!

Link to Awesome Phillip Blond

RE: My last post. How's about Phillip Blond just says it a million times better? THIS is what I'm trying to say!

http://www.respublica.org.uk/articles/shattered-society

It takes a while but it's really really good.

STONEWALL, STROUD AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Right. Got to be quick as I don’t have time for this… but I’ve been bursting to write for a while now. There’s a lot going on to tax my little brain as we enter the final furlong come Thursday.


FIRST, I want to talk about society’s new ‘Worst Thing Ever’. That is to upset the homosexual lobby, and Stonewall in particular. Whoever you are, whatever you’ve done, there’s one thing that can finish your political prospects in a heartbeat – that is to express any doubt, disagreement or distaste regarding any aspect of the homosexual lifestyle or preference. Chris Grayling, whatever Thursday’s result, will probably not be Home Secretary. Philippa Stroud is unlikely to prosper, even if she wins in Sutton. Why? They broke the new golden rule. For Grayling it was the ‘B&B’ comment, hastily withdrawn. In Stroud’s case she didn’t even have to speak! It was enough for her enemies to show that, as an evangelical Christian, she had allegedly been part of a group praying to ‘cure’ homosexuality, albeit many years ago. Never mind that she’s done more overt and selfless good than any number of her critics – years of work with the homeless, alcoholics, drug addicts; a stint in Hong Kong working alongside the needy and abused; and a valuable role at the Centre for Social Justice – all of that is redundant, meaningless, if done whilst harbouring an opinion that homosexuality is in any way less than ideal.

There are so many issues at play here. In an incredibly short space of time we’ve seen a positive (tolerance and a desired end to homophobic bullying) become a fearsome negative (crushing freedom of religious conscience and hounding Christians in the public sphere). It’s just too much. I am in no way disregarding the sensitivity of this issue inside and outside the church – if I, as a Christian, had always experienced overpowering same-sex attraction… well I can fully see how difficult things might have been for me. So let’s talk about it; let’s have the discussion and explain where we’re coming from. But to crush all debate, to render it taboo and to scream fascism at any who venture an opposing view? It’s only going to drive people into resentful isolation. Don’t mistake disagreement for hatred. Don’t make politics out of bounds for any but the fully-PC and liberal (or for the many that pretend to be).

In this day and age, to dispute homosexuality is akin to racism, and is treated just as hysterically. I don’t believe this is valid. To hate someone, to see them as a lesser person, or to deny them human rights due to inbuilt sexual preference would be comparable. But for someone to choose a particular sexual act, relationship, lifestyle or fashion is not equivalent to being black or Asian. The former are choices and the latter is not. And if those choices are questioned or disapproved of, you can tell people to mind their own business, or even punch them on the nose. But don’t make out they are criminals for doing so!

SECOND, I want to share my ongoing thoughts about the Welfare State. I’ve been privy to a lot of recent discussion as to how Christians should vote. Evangelicals have tended to side with Conservatives over family values, pro-life issues and religious freedom. More liberal Christians have tended to see Labour as their home due to the provision of social justice through the welfare state (and not just liberals – remember the role of the Methodists within the early Labour party). If I am to join the former, I don’t want it to be a case of turning by back on the thinking behind the latter. I am certainly uncomfortable with the heavy hand of the state – I don’t trust them with all that money – but I have to be ideologically committed to an alternative that leaves the disadvantaged no less well served.

My thinking has settled upon the following: First, Conservatism was not always seen as heartless. The tradition of One Nation Toryism had a strong compulsion to care for the vulnerable – with strong emphasis on charity, compassion and voluntary service. This is why the first post-war Tory Chancellor Rab Butler was able to endorse and retain the Welfare State. Indeed this is why a devoted long-term anti-poverty campaigner such as Philippa Stroud, above, is able to find a home in the party. It would seem the problem is more Thatcher than the Conservative Party – it was under her rule that heartlessness so came to be part of the blend. One Nation views were overtly ditched as ‘wet’ and people were encouraged to plough their own self-interested furrow in the belief their subsequent wealth would naturally ‘trickle down’ to enrich and inspire the rest. The result was 3.6 million unemployed left largely to their own devices. But Cameron has been named by The Telegraph as the successor to Disraeli. He has listened to the likes of Rifkind or Iain Duncan-Smith. There is hope that ‘compassionate conservatism’ is more than empty rhetoric. In other words, it is perfectly possible that I could vote Conservative without in any way endorsing the neglect of the needy (and if it comes without so stifling an atmosphere of political correctness then all the better!).

Second: But what do I want by way of social provision? The Labour party came to exist, not because the others didn’t care, but because the working classes wanted a voice of their own, rather than a paternal top-hatted figure speaking sympathetically on their behalf. But they also came to exist in order to see the state wheeled into action as a benevolent redistributor of wealth. To a degree it’s worked, but not entirely. I still doubt the wisdom of throwing money at every social ill. It certainly doesn’t promote social mobility. The spectre of dependence perpetuates to the next generation and lessens self-respect. Where there is genuine incapacity there must be a safety net, but work must be incentivised and choosing hand-outs over available work mustn’t be an option (that’s why Lib Dem tax relief on the first earned 10k is better than Labour tax credits). The joy of spending on luxuries should be merited by virtue of wages earned – perhaps the hand-outs of necessity could be in the form of goods or vouchers exchangeable for only the essentials? By all means distribute council houses, offer training and facilities, but again let them be incentivised so there might be reward for hard work and initiative, stigma for the unwilling. And empower the charity and voluntary sector. Or even the private sector – let them compete to help the poor, complete with withheld financial incentives for those businesses that achieve results in lifting families out of poverty or delivering jobs. After all, the more direct the delivery of help, the less expensive the grinding layers of government in place to co-ordinate the whole racket.

And for the tax-payer, who resents giving so much of his/her labour to bureaucrats servicing layabouts? Can THEY take the initiative? Allowed to retain the cash, not all can be trusted to redistribute it. But could there be tax exemption for those who can prove they have done their share – whether by large charitable donation or voluntary service? Can there be an element of empowerment in terms of choosing how these sections of our wages are employed by ranking a list of options? In this I am inspired by the green Waitrose tokens placed in the box corresponding to a charity of the shopper’s choice! How much better to be nudged into philanthropy than to be robbed by the taxman; we are taxed directly for many of the services we receive anyway (road tax, VAT, council tax, National Insurance) and the government should have to pitch harder and more transparently in requesting our cash for the rest.

Small ideas and undeveloped perhaps… but I can’t help but feel they resemble a true ‘Big Society’. Whether Cameron’s version equates to anything of substance we shall perhaps begin to see by next week!

GUEST POST: Streatham Hustings Reviewed

GUEST POST!! The following post is written by PianoMan, a friend and reader who thought it only fair that the Streatham hustings (held the same night as the Tooting one) get represented up here too. So blame him! Might be useful for anyone within the constituency wanting relatively even-handed information to go by...

The Streatham Hustings was an admittedly tame affair, but probably all the more enjoyable and enlightening for it.


Church-organised, the audience was predominantly Christian and, well, let's say just a tad more charitable than your average hissing and booing Question Time mob. At our rather more reserved event, a smattering of applause followed absolutely everything that was said (even questions) - damning praise indeed!

The debate's moderator was a kindly likeable old Christian gent and clearly clued up on his political issues. But Paxman he was not, and despite repeatedly and firmly (well, firmly for a kindly, likeable old Christian gent) telling candidates to stick to 1 minute long answers, the candidates routinely took as long as they liked. This had a similar effect (on the MPs) as when I find myself at an 'all-you-can-eat' buffet: I may well be stuffed full already, but I'm still going to eat as much as I can anyway. Because I can. And so the candidates tended to ramble on even if they had nothing left to say. Because they could.

As a result, there was no time for debate between the candidates and limited time for questions. And some of the (relatively few) questions perhaps seemed a little more suited to a Miss World contest - "if you had only one prayer for Streatham, what would it be?".

Finally (let's get all the negativity done!), the degree of consensus between the candidates perhaps betrayed a lack of gritty political debate in favour of too much aspirational rhetoric. I mean, you can't really disagree with people saying repeatedly that poverty is bad, and education is good. At times, I would have liked more specifics.

Okay - negative stuff over - this absolutely did not mean the hustings was a waste of time. On the contrary, its flaws actually had major advantages. The candidates were obviously relaxed by the good-natured audience, and seemed able to show us who they were and what they were about (good and bad). I also got the impression that, oddly I suppose, they didn't seem desperate to impress the audience at all costs. This lack of cynicism was refreshing and at times enlightening (see later.) The whole thing was also decidedly light on party political backstabbing, and juvenile insults, which perhaps made it less exciting but, again, more refreshing.

Now, the candidates:

Chuka Umunna (Labour candidate) was the night's biggest cheese. Umanna has been held up as a potential ‘British Obama’ by the media. He’s written for everyone from The Guardian to the FT, has appeared on Question Time and Daily Politics, has founded an influential online magazine and is a leading member of influential Labour pressure group Compass.

At first I was on the verge of huge disappointment. Chuka seemed a bit bored, a bit disinterested, a bit like he was above the whole event (football anoraks: think Berbatov playing at Tottenham) – almost as if he simply felt the need to tick the Christian box, before moving onwards and upwards. And this – conveyed by slightly clumsy body language, and a couple of impatient answers - came across as arrogance. (Note: Chuka later said that his biggest weakness was being able to 'read him like a book', especially when he was bored). I also noticed that in his first few responses he seemed inclined to use the term 'helluva lot', well, one hell of a lot - especially considering the possibly conservative audience.

But, pretty soon he started to warm up, exhibiting some of the rhetorical flourishes that have him marked out as a rising star. The only candidate to have been born and raised in the area, his knowledge on and passion for the area was evident and undeniable. His long impassioned answer on how we can tackle gang crime in Streatham had the audience rapt and inspired. One got the impression that if Streatham wanted an impressive, dynamic and passionate ambassador, then we could do a lot worse than putting our tick next to Chuka's name come May 6th.

The green party was represented by Rebecca Findlay. My main doubt about the green party is that we all know their main issue is the environment, but are all of the other policies that are essential to our lives (and indeed essential if we want to begin to tackle climate change) an afterthought? Ms Findlay actually did a good job of assuaging these doubts – she was composed, a good speaker, with a decent command of facts and policy. Sometimes I worried about her pragmatism – I'm a fairly liberal chap, but actually think that big companies (such as Tesco) would be of benefit to the High Road area, and wouldn't necessarily want her to be campaigning against it (so long as smaller businesses were somehow supported.)

Would she get more votes as a mainstream candidate? Yes, definitely. Did she convince people that green was not a wasted vote? I would say no.

The Tory party candidate was one Rahous Bhansali. A personable chap – he came across as the most humble and humorous candidate. Flaws? At times he sounded like he was still rehearsing his political speeches in front of the mirror – doing his best David Cameron impression - rather than engaging with a local audience, on local issues. The answers were a little vague, a little too aspirational and didn't imbue me with confidence that he knew the Streatham constituency particularly well nor would be the much needed fierce advocate for the area.

Finally, the Liberal Democrat candidate was Chris Nicholson. He's a Clapham chap (accountant) who campaigned against the closure of the Post Office and Ice Rink, and, from the recent polls, would appear to be the main opposition for Chuka. He also has previous political experience as a local counsellor, and a government advisor (on economics). At the time, I didn't know much about Chris Nicholson, other than having got fairly sick of receiving his cheap looking literature through the post which said nothing else but to 'vote Chris Nicholson if you want to get rid of Gordon Brown's tired old Labour government'. (Note: since, I have received slightly more informative fliers).

However, from his performance at the Hustings I would argue that his negative literature has not done this (clearly thoughtful, warm, humble and passionate) man justice. Motivated by his personal Christian faith (which is about as much as he said on the matter), he said (believably) that he was in politics because he wanted to see more social justice. Very much in line with his party's manifesto, Chris was passionate about fairer taxes that would put money back into the pockets of the constituency's poorest residents. I was also impressed by his mention of getting alongside the marginalised in society – in particular asylum seekers and immigrants. One got the impression, from his humility and lack of bluster, that Chris was the kind of MP that would be approachable and accountable to his constituents - particularly striking in a time where most people have lost their faith in arrogant and greedy politicians.

My vote? Well, firstly, as someone who is fairly left-leaning, I would generally not consider voting Tory, since I do not feel the party at large is committed to the redistribution of wealth, and the equality and fairness that Lib Dems / Labour are traditionally in favour of. I also feel that the Tory candidate here was not sufficiently strong enough to join what is essentially a two-horse race between Labour and Lib Dems (for this seat). Likewise the green candidate, who may have gained more attention were she a candidate for one of the mainstream parties. But as things stand, I think that both a Tory and Green vote would be wasted.

So Nicholson or Ummuna? I would argue that both would be worthy representatives for the area. Both evidently passionate about being advocates for the poor and marginalised, Ummuna would lead from the front (he is clearly going places, and would hopefully take Streatham with him), whereas I feel confident that Nicholson would get alongside his constituents and fight their causes for him.

It's all your choice anyway (providing you live in Streatham of course!) The great thing is that the Hustings gave me a new passion for the area, and fresh belief in the people that want to be our representatives.

A NIGHT AT THE HUSTINGS...

Last night saw our local candidates go head to head in St Nick’s, Tooting for a church-organised hustings in this most open of elections. Well, at least, that was the theory. But let’s start with the major disappointment – Sadiq Khan didn’t show, instead sending Rex Osborn, a local Labour councillor, in his place. This entirely denied the 100-ish present a heavyweight clash and utterly flattened the field for Conservative Mark Clarke. The Liberal Democrat candidate Nasser Butt was present but, with all due respect, it seems his party has (understandably given prior performance) decided not to seriously contest the seat. Butt was an amiable chap, but often failed to grasp the gist of questions asked and gave a shambling performance rather bringing to mind Mr Bean. Cleggmania seems somewhat redundant in SW17… Add this to the fact Councillor Harmon really wasn’t trying to play the part of a candidate – not bothering to stand to answer and saying literally half as much as either of the others – and you are essentially left with the Mark Clarke show.

And it was an impressive show. This guy has been groomed for these moments. He was selected three years ago and moved then back to the area, given time to lead local campaigns and become a champion of the people. It’s cynical in a way – but strangely flattering that Tooting is deemed so important (according to Clarke in conversation afterwards, everyone from CNN to Al-Jazeera are scheduled to be present there for election night – his party have never taken the seat before and it may go down to the last vote!) – and I have personally reaped the benefit of it; Clarke having played a lead role in taking on the infamous Soma Café, next door to my flat. Clarke is a smooth politician; he sussed the audience in a way neither of the others came close to – with an overwhelmingly Christian audience, there were easy ovations to be gained by going hard on abortion, favouring freedom of speech and defending Christian heritage. He brought them home with ease.

Most impressive, however, was Clarke’s contribution to the Health debate. I asked the prompting question, one reflecting on the strengths and issues encountered during my wife’s brain surgery at St. George’s last year, and asking how money would find its way to front line services and staff. Butt’s answer was lame and ill-informed. Osborn went, as I’d expect, down the route of strongly defending St George’s as a great hospital and a privilege we should appreciate. This was more cynical than it sounds – designed to capitalise on recent news stories accusing Clarke of having exaggerated and scaremongered in undermining the hospital for political capital. But Clarke is way above mere gestures on this. He has been showing up to board meetings at St. George’s since arriving in the area. He is an ambassador for Tory’s famous ‘efficiency savings’, having seen the hospital board double in size and award themselves pay rises – NHS Wandsworth in one case paying £750,000 to an individual for an 8-month management contract. By his own admission, the board ‘hate’ him for these observations and he has evidence they themselves leaked the story of his ‘attacks’ on the hospital to the press. But he is in no way an enemy of NHS front-line services; his wife and mother both working in local hospitals. This was clearly his field of expertise and I would have loved to see him lock horns with Sadiq Khan over it.

Which brings us to the other refreshing thing about Clarke. There was a total absence of negative campaigning from him – another calculation for the benefit of the Christian audience? Possibly, but I get the feeling he and Khan are actually pretty good mates outside of election season. He referred to his rival as a ‘local champion’, an ‘exceptional MP’ and, in conversation, even a ‘role model’ to follow if he takes the seat. This goes way beyond mere platitudes.

In fact, I thought the worst thing Clarke did at any stage was to summarise by reminding everyone it was really about David Cameron. This was surely an outdated move, lacking recognition of the poor campaign his leader is having, and the electoral turn-off he’s becoming. After a performance as good as this, the last thing Clarke needed to do was remind us of his bewildered boss. You can bet ‘Gordon Brown’ would have been as unlikely a closing thought from Khan in this company as would ‘socialism’. In fact Cameron is the biggest threat faced by the Tories in Tooting – another poor debate by him tonight and you have to imagine the swing required to deliver Tooting might be gone for good. And it truly has been a poor campaign by the Tories on the whole – when was the last time you heard mention of the ‘Big Society’ presented with great fanfare at the manifesto launch? It already seems like yesterday’s news… (although the policy of parent-owned schools was raised last night – the test case will be up the road in Battersea).

So, where do I now stand? Well, locally Mark Clarke has won me over (and if he does win, you’ll soon hear plenty more of him), and the Lib Dems don’t factor. Which is something of a shame, as nationally the Conservatives are having a ‘mare and there is the prospect of real Lib Dem-propelled excitement. Still, it’s no done deal – I’ve very much enjoyed my ‘floating’ status in a marginal seat this time around. I’ve had a long email from one heavyweight candidate and a long conversation with the other. I’m running a school election launching on Monday, and more people than you might imagine are reading the blog! I’m well aware I’m unlikely to see another election like this one so I’ll continue to enjoy it while it lasts…

SADIQ KHAN PROPERLY WRITES TO ME. BLIMEY...

Now this is utterly unexpected. I’ll admit I sent a token email to Sadiq Khan’s campaign team with a link to my blog, inviting a response. However, the idea that a front bench government minister (albeit only front bench because the actual Transport Secretary sits in the House of Lords, but still!) would take at least half an hour to personally respond to my little blog post is frankly astonishing. I’m not sure there’s a great deal below to change my mind about the need for a change from Labour (although the Conservatives have proved somewhat unimpressive since my original post) but it does preserve my high opinion of the man himself.


“ Dear Andy,


Thank you for sending me the link to your blog explaining why you’ll be voting Tory (I said I probably would. In reality I’m still pretty much floating! Post on Lib Dems to follow… AW). I do of course respect your decision but I hope you don’t mind if I offer you my take on the matter.


I don’t believe by voting for an MP you are merely voting for a party, let alone that party’s leader.


There is a big difference between a good and a bad local MP and I would urge you not to underestimate the interaction between local and national policy. A good MP can take local issues to a national level and bring national help to a local level. For instance, as you may know, the South West London Law Centre (an invaluable local resource) very nearly had to close last year due to financial difficulties. I helped secure Ministry of Justice funding to prevent this from happening. A good MP can make sure Government is aware of the concerns of their community. For example I have arranged for the Foreign Secretary to meet local Tamil community leaders to hear their concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka. Conversely, do not underestimate the impact a divisive MP can have on a community. I have been unimpressed by the way the local Conservatives have been attacking our local hospital for electoral gain. (See http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/12/tories-tall-stories-115875-22105198/)


I’m afraid I’m a bit unclear as to whether you’re advocating a PR system or not. Personally I agree with your first point in this regard - that retaining the constituency link is important. I support holding a referendum on AV, and I believe this would ensure MPs reached out to a much wider proportion of their voters. The Tories have no interest in reforming the voting system.


You say you have become more Conservative as you’ve aged and this is of course your choice. However, I do not agree with what seems to be your characterisation of the Labour party (“calling disagreement hatred”, “the desire to regulate anything that moves”). To me the Labour party has always stood for justice and fairness and, as a former Labour voter, I assume this has some resonance with you. When I have supported measures in Parliament such as the 50p tax rate and a tax on bankers bonuses, this is not because I believe that wealth is “inherently bad” as you put it. Rather, I believe that in these difficult economic times progressive taxation is the fairest way forward. I do not think that inheritance and marriage tax breaks are a priority.


Assuming the things you list as Labour achievements indicate what you consider to be important, I am surprised you are considering voting Conservative. Labour has guaranteed to protect the policing and schools budget. The Tories have not. It is worth remembering the Tory legacy. By the end of the last Conservative Government health spending as a share of national income was the second lowest of all the major industrialised countries, and the aid budget had been halved.


Thank you for taking the time to listen to my point of view. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.


Yours sincerely,


Sadiq.


P.S You mention my expenses in your blog. I have always been open and honest regarding my expenses, publishing details on my website before the Telegraph scandal broke. As a new MP in 2005, with a new team of staff, I did make a genuine mistake in claiming for cards. I paid back the money, without being asked to do so, as soon as it was brought to my attention.”

CHRISTIANITY IS DIFFERENT FROM ISLAM!

One of the most common lies of the day is that all faiths are equally true. Or equally false. Or at least equally valid. It’s something I considered on a previous post and may well return to. However, I’d like to here briefly flag up the specific differences between the two great rival faiths of the day: Christianity and Islam. Differences between Christianity and other religions are easier to flag. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism – Jews simply rejecting the New Testament and the claims of Jesus. Buddhism is essentially atheistic, with no specific god – although still supernaturalistic (reincarnation etc). Hinduism? It gets the best stories and has been essential in giving a nationalistic identity to once disparate tribes; but where, despite the New Atheistic scorn, large numbers of credible scientists, academics and philosophers will argue for the burden of proof favouring Christianity, I’m not aware there is any Hindu equivalent to Professor John Lennox proposing an actual scientific basis for the flying monkeys or elephant headed deities of Hindu scripture. (Sikhism I know very little about so I won’t pretend otherwise).

So then, back to Islam and why it is different. In addressing this I am responding to one of my great heroes – that is my grandfather, who has, at ripe old age of 90, authored a compelling book (currently lost in a minefield of copyright complications) proposing bridges between the three ‘Abrahamic’ faiths. I’ll begin by acknowledging his similarities. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are indeed all looking to the same God – the one who revealed Himself to Abraham. They are all monotheistic and each believe in Heaven, Hell and a similar moral code on Earth.

However, beyond that, I have to disagree that they are at all on the same page (although, let me make clear at the outset, I am very much for ongoing mutual tolerance and respect... just let's not be scared of debate and criticism within that!). Christianity involves following Jesus Christ – hence the title. Christians believe he is the Son of God, and the means by which we can re-enter into relationship with God and become acceptable to Him in our sin. Popular ignorance (and in that I do not include my grandfather!) would have Muhammad as another tribe’s interchangeable Christ figure – their culturally applicable bridge to knowing God. However, if so, they don’t know Muhammad and they don’t know Christ.

Attitudes to Peace: Whatever the conduct of Christians down the years, Jesus was in his lifetime a man of peace. The Jews expected a warrior deliverer to free them from the Romans, but Jesus instead told followers to ‘turn the other cheek’, assuring them that ‘blessed were the peacemakers’. Ultimately, he walked willingly to a sacrificial death, coming ‘not to be served but to serve’. For Muhammad, on the other hand, his revelations quickly put him personally at the head of a conquering army. After he had taken Mecca in 630, his second successor Omar took Egypt, Persia and Palestine. This initial tide was to take Islam right into Europe (and conquest of Spain), only being halted by defeat in France in 732. (The Ottomans would later take up the mantle, conquering the likes of Constantinople and the Balkans until ultimately halted by failure in Vienna, 1683). Now if I point out that Islam lends itself to fighting, I will be quickly directed to the Crusades, in which the Christian Pope launched a ‘holy war’ of his own. However, I’d venture that has little to do with Jesus if we’re here comparing faith founders. The early church was marked and known by peaceful martyrdom right up to the point when Rome got its hands on it and changed absolutely everything. Besides which, as an aside, people often forget that Islam was ultimately successful over Christianity in the Crusades and, in actual fact, it was often Christians who were slaughtered by their own (read about the sacking of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade).

And Muslims? Well I don’t want to misrepresent the many. Thankfully for all, the official policy of Sunni Islam is formed by a Hadith (an official saying of Muhammad outside of the Qu’ran) claiming that military Jihad is secondary to the greater Jihad of winning the personal battle to live a holy life (in fact, Jews and non-conformist Christians living in contested areas welcomed both the first Muslim invaders and the later Ottomans as more tolerant and peaceable governors than either their Byzantine or Catholic rulers). However, there have always been those from inside and outside of Islam willing to question the authenticity of such a proclamation. Some,examining both their holy book and the example of both their founder and the early Caliphs, have periodically returned to a literal interpretation of Jihad. Most pertintently to our world, one such voice was Wahhabi – an 18^th Century figure sponsored by his local Arabic rulers. Their name? The house of Saud – ultimately bound to form Saudi Arabia and strike oil. Calls for Jihad are also more legitimate and commonplace in Shia Islam (15% of the Muslim world) as officially practised in Iran. Again, this is not to implicate the bulk of moderate Muslim – they are in the firing line perhaps more than anyone where extremists are concerned. But the link between Islam and violence is far more legitimate than is any such link in biblical Christianity (George W Bush take note!).

Pharisees: It should be noted that Jesus signed his death warrant when taking on the fussiness of the religious authorities. Much of his anger was directed at the fact their love of legalism had surpassed the principles behind it. We see this throughout the gospels – Jesus is at pains to point out, for example, that Sabbath rest was meant to be a good and beneficial thing. Now he saw the Pharisees wanting to punish those healing on the Sabbath, or even picking up a stick! Similarly, they couldn’t abide or hear those failing to observe their own man-made and elaborate washing rituals. Such rule-checking also gave them great status in the community, something else he criticised.

This has clearly come once more to pass in the ‘Hail Marys’ and candles of Catholicism, but even more so it has come to characterise Islam. Where Muhammad urged only modesty in women (and a lot of the Qu’ran seems to celebrate women), creeping legalism has in some places buried them beneath the burqa. Where he prescribed against worshipping images, presumably concerned that people would end up worshipping depictions of him instead of Allah, we end up with murder over a Danish doodle (and who’s going to worship THAT?!).  It seems that Islam (and some state-sponsored Christianity!) has largely become the very thing Jesus would most rail against. Is this just a man-made error both have wandered into or an integral difference between the two? I believe the latter, because Islam is a meritocracy based on earning salvation through works - thus lending itself to a great fear of rule-breaking. Christians, on the other hand, can do nothing, short of believing, to save themselves. From the start of the Islamic calendar the careful rituals of prayer, eating, fasting and pilgrimage were set in place; whilst in contrast the Christian New Testament fulfils and ends slavery to the minutiae of Jewish law.

And the rest! But ultimately, those are just the two points I wanted to make. Outside of them there are huge numbers of differences between Christianity and Islam. Only the former offers relationship with God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, resurrection, the guarantee of forgiveness and much more besides. Above all, Jesus dropped that bombshell of being the long-prophesied Son of God, where Muhammad never claimed to be any more than a Prophet. The new tendency to lump the two religions together as the same old problem (usually with images of 9/11 playing onscreen) is lazy and counter-productive. On another occasion I’ll take a historical hammer to the idea that rational reason alone is any more inherently peaceful – the Renaissance-sparked ideas and technologies having ultimately led us to the great and godless wars of the 20^th Century (because the problem is people!). Neither can you get far in the wishful thinking of seeing Christianity and Islam as similar enough to ultimately pull in the same direction (sorry Grandpa). I admire a lot of Muslims in that they have more principle and remain more distinctive than many Christians. I enjoy the flavour they give my local community in Tooting. I know Muslims I like very much (generally the ones willing to discuss this stuff!). But, ultimately, I think they’re mistaken, and I don't think their beliefs are particularly similar to mine. 

WHY I'M (PROBABLY) VOTING CONSERVATIVE. GULP...

‘Private school teacher from Surrey votes Tory’ is hardly likely to make the front pages. However, it will be enough of a shock to most who know me and it will certainly be the first time it’s happened. It will also make me rather unusual even among those few who have voted for all three main parties in general elections (I was always a Labour supporter but voted tactically for the Lib Dems in Epsom & Ewell as the supposed closest opposition) - ‘floating voters’ are traditionally fairly disinterested, which I am clearly not. So why?

1.      Time for a Change: The phrase may be familiar! But it’s true. First and foremost, Brown must go and Labour need a spell out of power. Even if the two lead parties were exactly the same (and, post-Blair, I think we’ll see this as increasingly untrue), it would be worth ditching the incumbent just purely for a change. Anybody retaining power for too long will become corrupted and bloated by it; that’s the repeating story of humanity. New Labour has lost its early reforming zeal and seems to want power for its own sake, doling out daily half-truths to preserve it – change is sometimes a good thing in itself. This country needs a bit of ‘first 100 days’ excitement.  

Furthermore, Brown really doesn’t deserve another term. This is true on his helmsmanship at the Treasury alone. I get angry when he tries to take credit for handling the recession. Truth is, he was the Chancellor who sold our gold and plundered pensions when times were good. Even in those years he borrowed rather than saved and left nothing for a rainy day. He congratulated risk in the City and, even when later bailing out banks, required no commitment that interest cuts be passed on or mortgages made accessible. He is at least partly responsible for the fact our taxes go primarily towards interest payments on debt increasing by £500 million a day.

National not local: I have always spoken well of my local MP Sadiq Khan. He’s done nothing to spoil that as far as I’m concerned (although there is bad press rearing its head as I write regarding a dodgy expenses claim). I’m not alone – he’s been recognised as a fine and devoted Parliamentarian with awards from the Spectator, Guardian, Channel 4 and New Statesman. One of my first posts on this blog was regarding the dilemma faced when wanting to vote for a good local MP, but wanting to remove his party. Well, I’ve done my homework. Well, when faced with national vs. constituency considerations in voting, national has to win. We have local councillors responsible for local issues – potholes, licensing, parking and refuse collection; those are elected separately at local elections.  An MP however is for Westminster – they are primarily foot soldiers for their respective party – ordered by the Whips to toe the line and to vote as instructed from the top. Therefore, despite all the letterbox propaganda, there is a limit to what they can do for us acting as individuals. The party on the slip is more important than the name – an MP’s primary significance lies in them being part of a majority (or minority) party in the House of Commons.

That’s not to reject the local link altogether- I don’t back PR systems wherein MPs are chosen from a list, abandoning constituency accountability. It is important to have one member of Parliament whom you can approach knowing he’s bound to listen – he has a office here whereas the Prime Minister doesn’t. It’s important to have someone in Westminster lobbying on behalf of your community, and someone with clout flagging up important issues within that community. And that can make a specific difference for an area: I was hearing over lunch yesterday how much Chris Grayling has done to personally lead (and even fund) the campaign to save Epsom Hospital; I mentioned in the last post that Siobhain McDonough used her influence in Westminster to secure two new academy schools for her Mitcham & Morden constituency. Similarly, Sadiq Khan has worked within the Transport Department to expand the Oyster scheme, knowing this is specifically beneficial to those in Tooting. But, his concerns and his work remain primarily national in scope. And, ultimately, his career prospects are dependent on his impressing Brown, not on his representing Tooting residents. A vote for Khan IS a vote for Brown.

Electoral System: I’m not saying there’s anyone offering much better than the Tories in the current mess (there’s a great article on one of the blogs showing ‘Word Clouds’ made of the 3 leaders’ speeches so far – Nick Clegg’s 2 largest words are ‘Labour and ‘Conservative’!), but under a PR system I’d certainly take a look around. However, nationally and locally, Conservatives are the only realistic opposition if I want to be rid of Labour. Therefore it’s them I’ll vote for. I would love it to be the case that my vote counted, whoever I voted for. I’ll love a real debate on Proportional Representation.  People rail about the undesirability of coalition governments, bringing up Italian examples or 1970s scare stories. But it’s worked well in Scotland and Wales. North of the border, where the SNP lead with only 47 of the 129 seats, every policy to pass (and 9 out of 10 do) has found its majority via compromise and tinkering in meetings – an air of consensus results, and even the 2 Green MPs have their day in the sun! (They recently sunk the annual budget due to an unwillingness to drop road expansion schemes!). Meanwhile there has never been a Parliament offering a worse advert for ‘strong’ government than the current UK Labour administration. There’s has been a callous disregard for the wishes of others, the government convinced they know best regardless; be it over human rights, banks or the EU. Bring in PR, and see voter turnout rise through the roof as people are re-enfranchised...

I am becoming more conservative: The truth is this development hasn’t come out of nowhere. I am not a textbook conservative – I’m too keen on multi-culturalism for that - but I have nevertheless become more conservative as I’ve aged. It’s clearly true: I don’t like the nanny state and the desire to regulate anything that moves. I don’t like the idea that wealth is inherently bad and to be penalised with ‘Robin Hood’ economics (although I REALLY don’t like the idea that the wealthy should avoid paying their fair share by lurking in tax havens). I loathe the tide of political correctness that supports affirmative action, penalises Freedom of Speech and calls disagreement hatred. I’m also at a loss as to the destructive behaviour of many unions (and the nonsense my own comes up with) and worried by their growing influence.

Yes I will defend aspects of New Labour – the investment in education has made a difference (although not as much as you’d imagine looking at the staggering spending), waiting lists and crime are genuinely down, Britain has taken a lead in overseas aid, Sure Start is a good idea, as are academies, a good start has been made on constitutional reform... but I’m not sure Labour is any longer my natural home, nor that I’ll return.

So there you go – I’m holding my breath and crossing the Tory box. Unless something happens on the campaign trail and I change my mind again! Either way, you can’t accuse me of failing to think it through! Oh and the picture is of Mark Clarke - a good egg and the actual Tory for whom I will vote in Tooting. I haven't mentioned him yet!

ANDY'S GUIDE TO YOUR LOCAL CONSTITUENCIES

DONE AS A FACEBOOK NOTE, BUT THOUGHT I'D STICK IT UP HERE IN CASE IT'S HELPFUL...

Tooting (inc Balham West of railway & Earlsfield)

CURRENT MP: Sadiq Khan

WHO IS HE? Rising star – as proven by the fact he’s always in shot behind Gordon Brown on TV. Photogenic moderate Muslim, squeaky clean over expenses and always an opponent of the War on Iraq. Formerly a Human Rights lawyer and now 2^nd in the Transport Department. Local boy whose father drove the 44 bus.

OPPOSITION: Conservative Mark Clarke – born in the area and now back living in Tooting Bec, although slated by Khan for being registered to vote in ‘Chelsea’s Millionaire’s Row’. His literature focuses on the NHS – vowing to sort out St George’s Hospital, at which his mother used to work.

CHANCES: This could be a good contest. Some assume Tooting to be a safe Labour seat but, truth is, if the 2005 swing of 2,500ish seats from Labour to Conservative was repeated – it would be very close indeed.

Croydon North (inc. Norbury)

CURRENT MP: Malcolm Wicks, standing again for Labour

WHO IS HE? Been MP there since ’92. Never made it to the Cabinet but has been a Minister for Work & Pensions and then Energy. Has now stepped down and acts as Special Advisor to Brown. Disliked by environmentalists for supporting Oil Drilling in Mornay Firth (alleged risk to dolphins). Pretty good on expenses.

CHANCES: Stuck with him. Even with 4% swing away at last election, still had majority of 14,000. That, friends, is a safe seat.

Battersea (inc rest of Balham and Wandsworth)

CURRENT MP: Martin Linton, standing again for Labour

WHO IS HE? 66 years old and not shown much ambition to be part of government up to now. Content to serve as PPS to a number of ministers. His passion is for Palestine and a 2-state solution.

OPPOSITION: Jane Ellison, a Conservative candidate standing for the first time following 23 years working for John Lewis.

CHANCES: Surely goodbye Mr Linton if there is any kind of pro-Tory swing. His majority was one of the smallest in the country at the last election, winning by only 163 votes. Expect Tory Battersea for first time since ’92.

Streatham

CURRENT MP: Keith Hill, Labour, stepping down. Was formerly PPS to Blair himself, following a ministerial career, and retired to backbenches once Brown took over. Fighting the seat for Labour is instead Chuka Umunna.

WHO IS HE? Umanna is well worth watching and could be a big deal – he has been held up as a potential ‘British Obama’ in the press. He’s written for everyone from The Guardian to the FT, has appeared on Question Time and Daily Politics, has founded an influential online magazine and is a leading member of influential Labour pressure group Compass. The New Statesman reckons he’s ‘One of 10 People Who Could Change the World’. Big voice for change – arguing loudly for a new electoral system etc.

OPPOSITION: Lib Dem Chris Nicholson will be closest opposition based on the last couple of elections. He’s a Streatham chap who campaigned against the closure of the Post Office and Ice Rink. Rahoul Bhansali for the Conservaitves.

CHANCES: Conservatives did hold Streatham back in ’87, but they were 11,500 behind last time so seem out of it. The Liberal Democrats on the other hand will feel they have a shout. As with Tooting above, if they and Labour do the same as last time (Labour lost 3,000, Lib Dems gained 5,000), then they’ll have it.

Mitcham and Morden

CURRENT MP: Siobhain McDonough, Labour

WHO IS SHE?: Controversial. Amazed she’s standing again. Done badly out of expenses, and sacked from the government by Brown after she called for him to go. But apparently a good local MP, winning a specialist unit for St Heliers and 2 big Academies for the area.

OPPOSITION: Melanie Hampton for Conservatives.

CHANCES: Not much. Safe Labour seat with 12,5000 majority.

Sutton and Cheam:

CURRENT MP: Paul Burstow, Liberal Democrat

 WHO IS HE? Big Lib Dem player. Former key member of Shadow Cabinet, but now their Chief Whip. Known for being particularly knowledgable on issues regarding older people.

OPPOSITION: Philippa Stroud of Conservatives – so confident of victory she’s vowed to only engage in positive campaigning! Interesting track record actually – Director of the Cedntre for Social Justice and has formerly spent 18 months working with Triad gang members in Hong Kong!

CHANCES: If Tories are going to win anywhere it’s here. The Lib Dem win in ’97 was a big turn-up, but even in their lean times the Tories have stayed right on their heels, losing by less than 3,000 in ’05.

Wimbledon

CURRENT MP: Stephen Hammond, Conservative

WHO IS HE? A former banker and currently a shadow Transport Minister with special responsibility for London.

OPPOSITION: Andrew Judge, a notable local figure having headed up the local council for 5 years. Long-standing environmental campaigner.

CHANCES: This is a place of proper politics! A real class clash between the estates of Colliers Wood/South Wimbledon and the rich Tory suburbs. In 2001 it just about stayed Labour. In 2005 it just about went Conservative. Surely the way things are going Labour can’t win it back.

Epsom & Ewell

CURRENT MP: Chris Grayling, Conservative

WHO IS HE: Often impressive but strangely gaffe-prone Shadow Home Secretary.

OPPOSITION: None really. Even in the ’97 massacre the Conservatives kept a majority of 11,000!

CHANCES: A seat so safe you could leave you phone and wallet on it and wander off to drink.

Vauxhall (inc. North Clapham)

CURRENT MP: Kate Hoey, Labour

WHO IS SHE: Interestingly controversial and combative backbencher. Has been called “the least gay-friendly MP” by Stonewall and, whilst very much against fox-hunting, has complained about UK gun laws being too harsh! Has voted against her own party on at least 7 key issues, including the Lisbon Treaty, ID Cards, top-up fees and the war in Iraq. WAS Minister for Sport but later campaigned against the London Olympics, saying Paris was more deserving!

OPPOSITON: Caroline Pidgeon for Lib Dems

CHANCES: Safe Labour seat, even in the 80s.

WHY I CHOOSE TO BE A WEIRDO...

...By which I mean, why do I choose to identify myself as a Christian, let alone one of evangelical persuasion? It’s certainly not credible in the modern age, nor convenient – in terms of the drain on time, money and lifestyle. It’s almost certainly an irritation to my friends... But I happen to believe it’s true and very important. Why? I will attempt to briefly outline the reasoning:

a) I believe we were created. Yunshui once commented on one of my posts saying the choice between an unseen creator or a world grown from nothing out of randomness is a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, there is ultimately either a guiding hand or there isn’t. Neither is ultimately provable, but I look at the existence of the fully formed and functioning DNA code of life emitting from even the first single-cell organism... and I see evidence of intelligence behind it. I look at the knowledge inherent in humanity that there is right, wrong and accountability... and I see external objective morality. I look at the history of cultures, each with the inbuilt urge to worship... and I see an inherent knowledge of something greater than ourselves. I have no beef with evolution, other than that a theory explaining only the drive for survival does not explain to me creativity, musicality, monogamy, altruism or beauty.

Indeed, I feel the real false dichotomy is between those who think and those who sustain faith.  I believe, and I think about it a great deal. I’ve even tried to turn my back on it in the past, but have found the alternative spiritually and logically unsatisfying in the extreme.The fact we’re here does mean something. The fine tuning required to sustain life, or indeed a stable universe, across a wide range of factors is in a probability bracket of a trillion to one and, whilst those odds are theoretically fine within an infinite universe, in no other context would we treat such reasoning as remotely convincing. Dawkins says there is only matter and energy, asking Who made God? To which I reply Who made your matter and energy? In short, I believe in God. 

b) The above remains the majority view globally. Many will stop there. But I’m a Christian, not merely a theist. I think it’s unsatisfactory to believe in God but then assume he wants nothing in return or has no intention of communicating with His creation. Why did he bother? Does he care if we completely ignore Him? Having studied it a fair bit, I find convincing answers in the Bible. I’m not obsessively literal about it all – I’m not going to spend my time arguing for a literal 6-day creation or a literally global flood – but I think the Jews lived up to their special billing; this semi-nomadic Middle Eastern tribe having survived and thrived to the present day despite the targeted persecution of Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Nazis for starters.  I believe we are indeed in a fallen world – people capable of greatness but generally wreaking a storyline of destruction and dissatisfaction repeating.

Above all, I think that the historical figure of Jesus Christ – God pitching up in human history to offer a solution, as repeatedly foretold in the Old Testament, lives up to the hype. His preaching and parables are sheer genius, his credibility was sufficient for 2 years of preaching to spark a worldwide movement, the early church who followed him were willing to travel far and wide for his sake, ultimately embracing martyr deaths and, crucially, those who would have loved to nip all this in the bud were unable to produce Jesus’ corpse or powerfully claim his non-existence following his all-important death in our place and subsequent re-appearance amidst once demoralised followers. He was cited in Roman and Jewish sources, and presented fully in the gospels; accounts written within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses by men of exceptional character, willing to depict their own weaknesses and write things that would get them persecuted. I recognise in his model a way of living that works and in his preaching a true description of my dilemma – that I’m a sinner needing saving but thereafter capable of living a productive and changed life. In short, I follow Jesus.

c) And then there’s the intangible results of faith... I’m not arrogant enough to present my own personal experiences as intellectually compelling to another. Yet it’s what we go through as individuals that ultimately seal the deal. I am intellectually convinced by Christianity – I hope you believe as much, even though the few words above only hint at the arguments contained. However, it is the change in myself and others, the unexplainables I have witnessed, the answered prayers and the fact it works... you could explain away each one and that’s OK – but here, living in my own skin, I choose to trust my senses and, several years in, I wouldn’t want to turn my back on Christianity for all the world. Not even following a year bringing with it a life-altering brain tumour for the person I love most.

Yes I know many Christians are hypocrites or ignorant (as of course are many atheists, Muslims, pagans or agnostics!). Yes I know George W Bush made it hard to be on the side of the Bible-bashers. Yes I know various Kings, Emperors and everymen have used and twisted the Bible to suit their own purposes throughout history. No, I don’t claim to have every answer for everything (and I’m a lot less know-all and intolerant, although no less convinced, than I was a couple of years back – life will that do that to you). Neither am I better than anyone else – true Christianity begins with the admission of rubbishness, although that’s no excuse to carry on that way.

But I am a Christian, and I will remain so. So feel free to ask me more if bemused, angered or fascinated... I reckon it’s worth thinking about – better a Dawkins than an ostrich!

PS I’ll balance this out with a post on football next!

POVERTY SUCKS!

A relative quicky here (Note: With the benefit of hindsight it really didn’t turn out to be that quick!). Just to say that poverty sucks and I’m feeling well justified middle class Western guilt about it. I have had a very comfortable life and I teach kids whose lives are more comfortable still. Even our poorest here in the UK often suffer within the parameters of satellite TV and mobile phones, although there are exceptions; particularly within the demonised asylum-seeking class. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23811988-the-dispossessed-mother-living-in-limbo-with-no-job-no-benefits-and-no-cash.do)


It is perhaps because we can’t truly envisage poverty that we do so little to alleviate it. Our pastor, a rather alpha male type, caused many to think long and hard when he talked this Sunday of having cried hard in front of his children earlier in the week at the Blue Peter footage of an 8-year old Peruvian orphan forced to scavenge for a living on a rubbish heap in order to survive. He just couldn’t help but make the comparison to his own 8-year old son.

Now I’m unhealthily emotionally stunted with the best of them, truly I am. I’m well aware that I approach the 1-year anniversary of the last time I genuinely cried – the aftershock of a truly horrendous morning watching my wife suddenly suffering convulsions whilst in intensive care following major brain surgery… But there really is plenty to get upset about outside of my metaphorical windows, and perhaps I should force myself to look at it and engage with it more. Then maybe I’d force myself to spend more money and time in doing something about it. Strangely, in addition to the incident above, I’m writing prompted by a story 230 years old. It jars because it’s in my city, it’s heartening because we have moved on as a society, but it’s shameful because it’s still happening elsewhere… and the bit that really challenges me is that it has a happy ending – a reminder that a little bit of care and investment really does make a difference. Please read it, it’s quite something:

http://www.georgianlondon.com/a-morning-walk-in-the-metropolis

Now there’s a lot in life to feel happy about – perhaps I should blog about that too one of these days, but it’s wrong that we cocoon ourselves entirely in smug satisfaction as a direct result of our taking far more than our share of what the planet has to offer. Just as wrong as it would be to sit and bemoan poverty whilst giving next to nothing towards its alleviation (and yes I do give, in case you wondered whether this was an absolutely empty gesture of an article!). I’d also like to acknowledge, as I’ve tried to in various ways in several of my posts, that deprivation is not just measurable by income. It’s about education, self-respect, opportunity and much else besides. But I’m sure a lot of that stuff only really starts to matter once you have enough to eat. And me? I currently have a bad stomach because I’ve over-eaten sugary snacks and meat these past few days. It’s a poor show really isn’t it? I wouldn’t always call it a blessing – because much of our societal excess directly feeds in to our spiritual funk, our lack of social cohesion and our worsening mental health issues (my gassy stomach acting as convenient metaphor). But it certainly carries with it responsibility… So for the sake of ourselves and others LET’S BE GENEROUS!!

PS: If you’re feeling clever, read the following – one of the world’s cleverest explaining that poverty is not just measurable in financial terms. Easier to follow in the second half than the first… but then I’m not all that clever:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/23/social-justice-philosophy-freedom

WHY DON'T WE MAKE THINGS ANYMORE??

I have the rare pleasure of teaching the Industrial Revolution next term. I have taken advantage of the virtual curricular autonomy I seem to have at the Castle to ditch the Civil War project, hurry through the Stuarts with Year 8 and leave lots of time open to look at inventions, cholera, slavery, protest and factory conditions (not necessarily in that order) next term. I’m looking forward to planning the lessons for the first time, but I’m already asking the question – where did it all go? What do we make and export to the world now? Yes there are things that maintain our world presence – finance, culture or entertainment for example – but not Sheffield steel, Stoke pottery or ships banged together in Govan. No more is the ready association made between Wales and coal, Hull and fish or Liverpool and its docks. And what’s replaced these hundreds of thousands of jobs? We are now a ‘service economy’ – dominated by its tertiary sector as opposed to primary (extracting a product from the ground/sea) or secondary (turning that product into something via industrial process). We are indeed a ‘nation of shopkeepers’, and indeed of call centre operatives, bankers, IT consultants, estate agents and public sector drones. It’s not all bad – but it results in a great many jobs offering limited satisfaction, it does little to bind or define a community and it means there is little scope for providing new jobs en masse when people are wary at splashing out on non-essentials.

Why is this the case? We still drive, dwell in and use numerous solid structures… but the truth is they’re manufactured elsewhere. It’s cheaper and more efficient for corporations to set up plants in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia than it is to maintain a presence on Teesside. Are they wrong? Certainly not from their perspective. Our minimum wage, pension/National Insurance contributions, workplace regulations and limited working hours make a large scale UK presence massively expensive. Overseas it can all be bypassed and a product produced for far less – why wouldn’t they do so? I’m not necessarily talking ‘sweat shop’ conditions here – a company can in good conscience set up in Eastern Europe paying lower wages quite appropriate to the housing/service costs of that locality and thus mistreating no-one. In an age of increasingly global companies, there is no special obligation to subsidise the UK workforce or economy. We Brits figure as consumers and vendors rather than producers in the eyes of most I’m sure. We’re caught between two stalls in a frustrating incarnation of the mixed economy – we’ve got just enough socialism from Europe to ensure bountiful regulation, but allied to enough free marketeering to ensure no-one has to stick around and abide by it!

So how do we compete? Well, as ever, I’m no expert, but I see the key possibilities, to be considered in turn, as 1) Go the libertarian route, freeing up UK working conditions to beat developing economies at their own game 2) the opposite – embrace enhanced state control 3) Play the global game – be prepared to emigrate 4) Focus on niche markets or 5) Provide here the skills and quality that others can’t…

1. This is surely the most controversial of the suggestions. You never hear anyone suggesting we scrap the minimum wage and free employers to treat their workers worse in order that they might base production here rather than in China. Rather you hear of the need for better paid paternity leave. Had it always been thus, the Industrial Revolution would never have taken off! Plus this does rather rely upon an assumption that the material benefits of enhanced wages/conditions are more conducive to happiness than is the sureness that comes from identity within a working class community – one low paid perhaps, but with job security and communal bonds to compensate. Wages might be lower and life tough, but the fact everyone is in the same boat may lead to low-cost services and houses provided in order to tap the market – perhaps by the employer companies themselves investing in the area. It appeals because so much seems to have been lost in areas deprived of their industrial life-blood, no longer able to relate to the Labour Party and without identity as the phrase ‘working class’ becomes anachronistic. However, I’m well aware it’s untenable (and ultimately undesirable) for the following key reasons:
• The unions would never hear of it! Rightly so if they’re doing their jobs – just look at the way Unite are taking on (unfairly crippling?) British Airways for relatively minor crimes.
• Every city will attract its high earners, if only for exploitation purposes, and they will help drive prices up and beyond those paid ‘free market wages’ in the vicinity.
• It’s probably all nonsense anyway – this noble working class myth. Many living it out were probably hungry and miserable half the time, even if they could play football in the cobbled streets! Maybe on reflection many miners are happier and safer above ground, despite the negative community impact? The standard of living has demonstrably improved almost everywhere since the 70s, let alone the 19th Century!
2. There is also REAL socialism to consider – the idea that, rather than just insist upon fair pay and Health & Safety, the government actually go the whole hog and run the factories and mines themselves, thus ensuring they stay open. British Steel was always going to be based in Britain! To a lesser degree they could subsidise industry in order to incentivise companies sticking around – much as they have the banks. This prospect has reared its head in the accusation that they should have kept the Corus plant in Redcar running until a buyer was found. Again however it is dangerous – the USSR was eventually scuppered over a lack of modernisation and productivity – why bother changing and progressing if you can keep doing things exactly as you are without threat of being closed down or rendered obsolete?
3. Speeding up now –emigration should perhaps be thought about far more. A basic British closed-mindedness and lack of languages means we only ever see the new EU-sanctioned freedom to work overseas as an immigration issue. In fact, why not do as the Poles do? Why not take our skills to the markets where they’re required and remunerated appropriately within the local economy? That is surely an option for the workers of Redcar and, indeed, why stick to Europe? What demands must there be within the burgeoning economies of Brazil, India or China? I’m not saying I’m personally tempted but I think I’d rather that than the dole?
4. I well remember the time when anyone with basic computer programming skills could name their wage and walk into a job – after all, every single company suddenly had to have an IT network and online presence. Hence the fact my university housemate could drink his way to a Third and quickly make himself better paid than the rest of us! Is there an ongoing opportunity for clever people to identify in advance niche or boom markets and for Britain to be taking particular advantage in some area of its own? A random example springs to mind – when in corporate sales I would always call Israel for the bioscience companies! What’s our niche, and could it involve manufacturing something new or different?
5. Finally – let’s look at the positives. Maybe, whilst Corus couldn’t keep up in the modern world, we should realise that Britain DOES still make things – eg Rolls Royce in Derby, Mercedes in Northampton. Nissan in Sunderland is apparently Europe’s most efficient car plant! In these cases there is something keeping them here and it’s not sentimentality – perhaps a brand, a reputation, an expert workforce or just a really well-run enterprise. The problem is that none of the above employ huge numbers of people – I guess we have to accept that modern technology has cut down on the sheer numbers of workers required. Nonetheless it is a reminder that quality and skills will out. Maybe we could drop the obsession with our nation’s children reaching university, even if ill-suited, because we value graduation (whatever the debts) more than we value skills and practical expertise. That’s why we needed all the Polish plumbers in the first place! Apprenticeships should surely be designed and offered in order to reflect the needs and opportunities of industry? And a profitable business is always appealing...

A lot there and a violation of my ‘3-digit word count’ rule, meaning probably no-one will read. But I’ve enjoyed thinking it through, and I hope we do remain a country that makes things… even if I myself remain a DIY-phobic who merely writes about it. It’s not just nostalgia – more a belief that a nation’s history imprints upon it and that we Brits are happiest when producing THINGS of our own.

PEOPLE NEED PEOPLE!

Teaching, as I do so often, Nazi Germany to at least two different year groups here at the Castle; I have been struck by Hitler’s use of community spirit. It is a yearly source of wonder and mystery to the lads; how this deranged and murderous oddball could possibly have inspired such widespread devotion. The assumption I have to pick away at is simply that they were coerced into doing so, whether by fear or violence. There is a presumption that if they didn’t wave flags, joyously salute and fight to the death for the Fuhrer, they’d be at once picked off by an SS sniper on the roof (or perhaps by the Gestapo agent under their bed).


Neither is true. Yes, it was wise to be seen playing ball lest you be reported by a zealous neighbour or your own Hitler Youth-attending spawn. But, as my Head of Department mentioned just this week – Hitler would have retained power with a vast approval rating had he held an election in 1938. It wasn’t everyone – of course not – but there’s every sign of him having been carried along on a wave of genuine public enthusiasm as the country’s fortunes and standards of living demonstrably improved (at least for those among the ‘Volk’) and the world began to fear them once more.

There are plenty of reasons for this – the nation’s history had seen them far more used to dictatorship and militarism than to the alternative, there was shame at the outcome of WW1 and fear at the experiences of the Great Depression, Hitler was even able to tap an already prevalent seam of anti-Semitism… However, perhaps above all (and I’m aware I say this without footnotes or credible backing) Hitler tapped a human need to belong. Throughout a German’s upbringing in the 1930s they would be told they were part of an exclusive club – racially and nationally. Evenings were filled with rallies, films, hikes, meetings… for children but also for adults in the world of work; kept happy with the like of ‘Beer and Sausage Evenings’ within the ‘Strength Through Joy’ programme. It was perhaps part of the appeal that others were not allowed to participate (Jews, gypsies, asocials, Communists, the mentally ‘defective’), thus serving to further affirm those on the inside, as well as giving them a common opponent and scapegoat. All school subjects and all public pronouncements made great use of the message that Germany and its people were special, chosen, destined for greatness – deserving of land and vengeance.

So what of it? Well I think this need exists still. People want to belong and they crave contact. There has been a horrible dismantling of organic bonds within society via the abandonment of church, unions, political parties or working men’s clubs. I’m not sure anything has truly replaced them – even football clubs have been taken, at the top level, beyond the reach of those who love them, leaving only the wealthy able to attend. Rather, social groupings happen online – where people compete for ‘friends’ they have often never met. This is unsatisfactory and demeaning of our humanity. Where for most of our history entertainment meant, by definition, a coming together of people, it is now fed through tubes into televisions and computer screens, devoured by isolated people cut off from each other by walls. I’m positive it’s partly responsible for the general mental health issues written about in the likes of ‘Affluenza’. It’s also dangerous. If someone in our age appears promising a community and acceptance within it on the basis of a crass and lowest-common denominator (Nick Griffin is a sort of rubbish dry run of the theory), it will surely seem hugely appealing to many.

There are positive instances of community still. Whatever you think of Christianity, hang around my church for a bit and you’ll see a bunch of people holding each other to high standards, looking out for one another and seeking to help out the wider community. I personally will never forget that whilst my wife was undergoing brain surgery, people were (without me asking) bringing round meals they’d cooked me, or taking my bike in to get the brakes fixed. I’m sure this mutual support is part of the reason why disconnected youngsters get sucked into the more fundamentalist forms of religion too, but it can be a very good thing – promoting charity, good parenting, moral behaviour. I’m not sure there are currently a great many alternative sources of such guidance; Harriet Harman threatening to arrest anyone who expresses a view suggesting ‘inequality’ doesn’t count! And it doesn’t have to be faith-based. I’ll never forget the glorious birth of AFC Wimbledon – a football club owned and formed by fans to replace the one bought by business sharks and literally taken from their community after 100-odd years in favour of Milton Keynes. It was clear that, with the early football at little more than parks standard in those early days, the thousands present craved above all a place to drink, sing and vent together – enjoying being a part of something that mattered to so many.

However, many seem to drift from communities once they leave school and university. Many in cities are lonely and thus susceptible to the politics of hate. It is to Britain’s credit that it never held much truck with extremes, whether Fascist or Communist. But, in troubled times, people still love a scapegoat and we need to give people a positive reason to belong. Social disconnection is prime fodder for the next budding Adolf!