Manifestos: First Impressions

Having read the Green Party Manifesto, and skimmed the Lib Dem Manifesto (being launched about now), I'm left with one question.

Why are these two groups of people campaigning as different parties?

The Libdems are a slightly paler shade of green than the Greens, but 95% of what is in one of these manifestos would sit quite happily in another. The Green manifesto puts climate change and zero carbon front and centre, and the traditional hot button issues of NHS and schools are buried deep into the document. But both seem to be driven by a very similar core set of convictions: environmentally conscious, fairness, localism and democracy, pro-Europe, liberal on social issues (sexuality, drugs, immigration), education and skills, and protecting the vulnerable.

The main difference is the urgency of climate change. If you think it's a really urgent issue, vote Libdem. If you think it's a really really urgent issue, vote Green.

(Discr)Editing

We've recently switched over to ITV rather than BBC news at 10 - mainly because Tom Bradby is a more entertaining presenter, but they do also attempt to dish up facts now and again, rather than intrigue.

This evening was a reminder to take it all with a pinch of salt: a heckler of Jeremy Corbyn - which could have led into an explanation of what the heckler was on about (either to nail it as an urban myth or analyse why it was a issue) was dismissed because he had 'posted homophobic tweets'. So what? A broken clock is right twice a day, why is that a reason to dismiss their views on other things? ITV was effectively saying that if you take a certain view on sexuality, it invalidates all your other views too. Really?

The brief clip of Jo Swinson standing alone in a boxing ring trying to look combative looked limp, there is footage of her sparring which looks a lot better, but we didn't see that. And both ITV and the BBC are making a big thing of 1 Lib Dem candidate standing down. One candidate. How about reporting on their policies?

And nothing on food banks. Bring back Paxo.

Food Bank Use Up 23% on last year. (Will this affect your vote?)

The latest Trussell Trust report shows food bank use is accelerating, up 23% year on year. Our local food bank, the Lords Larder, has seen a rise of over 25% in the last 2 years, and is a reminder that Trussell Trust figures cover around 60% of UK food banks. That means over 2 million emergency food parcels are given out each year.

Here's what the Trussell Trust say. Please put this to your local election candidates.

“This is the busiest six months we’ve ever seen – more people than ever are being forced to food banks’ doors. Our benefits system is supposed to protect us all from being swept into poverty, but currently thousands of women, men and children are not receiving sufficient protection from destitution. This is not right.

“But we know this situation can be fixed – our benefits system could be the key to unlocking people from poverty. This General Election, all political parties must pledge to protect people from hunger by ensuring everyone has enough money for the basics. We’re asking politicians to start working towards a future where no one needs a food bank by ending the five week wait for Universal Credit; ensuring benefit payments cover the cost of living; and investing in local emergency support for people in crisis.

“Together, these three changes will put money back into the pockets of people who most need our support. It’s in our power as a country to end the need for food banks. This can change.”

If you vote for a party which isn't proposing to scrap the 5 week wait for Universal Credit, and thinks benefit levels are fine the way they are, you are voting for this to continue. I'll be watching with interest to see how much airtime this is given today by our well fed journalists (so far the BBC has completely ignored it).

Calls for National Emergency over Flood of Politicians

There are calls today for the declaration of a National Emergency over the visits of politicians to areas affected by floods.

"We've been absolutely inundated" said Mabel Soggy of Doncaster "its like someone opened the floodgates - Corbyn, Swinson, Miliband, we're just thankful Boris Johnson is so scared to show his face in Yorkshire that he stopped at Matlock. There's been a constant stream of politicians taking our mops to appear in photos, or interrupting volunteers and the emergency services whilst they're trying to do their job."

Local geologist Abdul Strata added a further note of concern: "there is very clear evidence that the ground itself is sinking. Once a political leader turns up, with their entourage of advisors, minders, photographers, reporters and film crews, the combined weight compacts the ground, already softened by flooding. Areas visited by politicians become more vulnerable to floods in the future."

A passing local estate agent sounded a different note. "Fishlake? Clue's in the name son."

Have you experienced a deluge of unhelpful politicians? Have you had to put sandbags across your property to protect it from film crews? If so, don't worry, by next week everyone might have forgotten all about you.

The Nigel Farage Negotiating Strategy

We've never seen Nigel Farage in negotiation with the EU, he tends to turn up, criticise, and only stop on the way out for his pay cheque. However we now have an insight into what a master negotiator he truly is:

Step 1: issue an ultimatum to the Conservative Party: drop the current EU withdrawal deal or face Brexit party opposition in every seat. 

Step 2: Conservative Party ignores the ultimatum.

Step 3: unilaterally decide to make life easier for the Conservative party by withdrawing 317 candidates in seats they are most likely to win.

I'm now trying to imagine an EU withdrawal agreement negotiated by Nigel Farage. After an ultimatum to drop freedom of movement, customs union, EU courts, and leave without a financial settlement, he then calls a press conference to declare that we're joining the Euro.

Linguistic Slack

What word can we use today?

15 men from Preston Plucknett, at the time a village of just a few hundred, died in the first world war. 232 men and women from Yeovil died in the 2 wars combined. And that is a drop in the ocean compared to the (literally) countless millions who died across the globe. We simply don't know, it could be 100 million, a few million more, or a few million less.

How do we describe that? Many vicars and service leaders today will be turning to poetry, and all of us will be turning to silence.

Language tends to get hyper-inflated during an election campaign. Add that to our growing culture  of conversing in feelings and interpretations (usually highly personal ones), and that's a toxic brew for anyone who values meaning.

In his TED talk 'How to speak so that other people will want to listen', Julian Treasure asks 'Exaggeration: it demeans our language - if I see something that really is awesome, what do I call it?' A few years earlier, Jesus put it this way: "Let your yes be yes, and let your no be no, anything beyond this comes from the evil one". Embroidering our language, exaggerating for effect, ultimately renders language useless. God is a communicating God, his first act is to speak creation into being, and part of being in God's image is the ability to communicate. Without truthful, clear language, communication, and ultimately relationships, are impossible.

Remembrance Sunday reminds us of lots of things. Maybe it reminds us too to leave ourselves some linguistic slack. Whatever we are tweeting our response to, whatever x or y is supposed to have said or done which cuts across our interests or personal space, it is minor compared to 100 million deaths. We cannot use the same language about it, or its perpetrators. For example, you aren't a fascist or a Stalinist, you're just someone who thinks the state should be slightly less, or slightly more, involved in taxation and spending.

Lets rediscover adjectives which de-escalate strife, rather than those which amplify it. The Great British Understatement deserves a comeback, because there are only a few things which are truly worthy of our most extreme language, and fewer still to which the only true response is silence.

Doctored

I find it impossible to believe that the video of Keir Starmer was doctored within hours of it being originally broadcast. I tried to get doctored last week and the first available appointment was December 4th.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/james-cleverly-defends-doctored-video-of-keir-starmer-in-fiery-exchange-with-piers-morgan-on-good-a4279796.html

How Gender Studies Actually Works

ooops

I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up.

In my defence, I wasn’t alone. Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works. But it’s not much of a defence. I should have known better. If I were to retroactively psychoanalyze myself, I would say that, really, I did know better. And that’s why I was so angry and assertive about what I thought I knew. It was to hide the fact that, at a very basic level, I didn’t have proof for part of what I was saying. So I stuck to the arguments with fervor, and denounced alternative points of view. Intellectually, it wasn’t pretty. And that’s what makes it so disappointing to see that the viewpoints I used to argue for so fervently—and so baselessly—have now been accepted by so many in the wider society.

Christopher Dummitt, gender historian. Read the rest here.