Why UKIP should shut up

Here’s why UKIP and others should shut up. This is not a sudden realisation – dear God, I’ve thought and felt this for a long time. Rather, I would like to think this is something akin to what far greater people than I would have described some 250 years ago as a self-evident truth.

As I write, it is Christmas afternoon. I am on the island of Tenerife of the Canaries, and it is 26 degrees Celsius and sunny. All is well.

Apart from one thing. One of my family was admitted to hospital earlier today with pneumonia. The immediate prognosis seems good and they should be fine, but this is nevertheless a grim and undesirable state of affairs.

At present, they are in hospital, being tested, observed and cared for. As far as I know, no questions were asked about their eligibility to receive this care, and they were submitted to analysis as quickly as possible.

What an utterly humane and proper way of doing things. Is that not the same thing you would do if a stranger arrived at your door with a serious injury? Treat first. Ask questions later. At any rate, it strikes me that asking any questions right now would be most inhumane. If they turned up with a claim for long-term care, having traveled solely for that purpose, then maybe (and I stress the word "maybe"), but, as it is, having suffered a severe but immediately short-term illness, care is necessary.

By now, you will have seen the analogy which I am drawing and abducted from that the argument I wish to make. Being benevolent to strangers is exactly what a modern country should aspire to do.

I know that things are more complex than that. I know that one has to consider national income, national expenditure, the global economy, population growth, and so on and so on, but UKIP (and indeed many others) and not asking questions about those things, though they are willing to deputise them into their arguments. They are asking questions about what sort of country we should be with relation to outsiders. What should we aim to be?

Well, my response to that question is that we should aim to be an inclusive country, a generous country. We should be a country that, as far as we can, aims to be charitable. We should take in the tired, the poor, the huddled masses as much as we can, and not treat them with suspicion, disdain or even hatred but with the simple capacity for human generosity and compassion.

My stating of this, at this particular moment, stems from the most selfish premise: you too could be in need. But how much better would it be for a nation to be generous simply for the sake of it. This is one of the major questions facing the UK as we head into 2015. Let us hope that we can answer it selflessly.

In Defence of Active Abstention

Voting for the sake of it is not enough. If change is going to come, we must be the source of it.

A few years back, during one of the omnishambles that have festooned this Parliament like writing upon biblical walls, I declared that were there an election the next day I would abstain. I was met with howls of reproach: “However you vote, you must vote.”

The last is a sentiment I too have frequently expressed down the years. It is notable, looking back on this year’s European elections, that my exhortation was down to stopping UKIP rather than a romantic appeal to the joy of the democratic process. That more prosaic tone does indeed reflect my increased feeling of disillusion, and as the General Election of next year draws ever closer, I find myself less and less able to back any party.

Nevertheless, the expectation is that I must vote. To not do so is a dereliction of my democratic duty. After much consideration, I must disagree and speak out in defence of active abstention.

The vote is one part of our democracy. It is certainly the most thrilling, and in many ways the most important, but it is just one part of it. I enjoy voting. I take pride in it. I value my vote and would not carelessly refuse to use it. I have turned out in every election I have been eligible to vote in, and I can only think of three occasions out of ten when I really felt that my vote counted in some small way. Two of those were European elections conducted under PR. The other was the vote for London Mayor, where my defiance in voting for Siobhan Benita, was somewhat masked by the futility of then having to vote for one of the two major candidates, neither of whom I particularly liked.

It’s not exactly a great hit rate is it? All of the others have been conducted in safe seats for one party or another. My vote made little difference. It was either a shout into a storm or a whisper in a chant. The conclusion is this, my vote, far more often than not, gives me little impact on the way my country is governed.

Besides, if I were still to vote I would still have to vote for one party that I find unacceptable on one level or another. I do not expect to go to the polls every election wholeheartedly believing in the party I will vote for, but I would like to go to the polls just once and be able to vote in a positive frame of mind.

The options in front of me have steadily strayed from anything that I might recognise as viable. They have become tortured, twisted, tribal, gutless prattlers, solely interested in their favourite game of politics and not at all in good governance. Politics is their sport, Westminster their Wembley, and The Andrew Marr Show their match of the day. Every single beat of a five year parliament is a point-scoring operation against the other side, and if it’s choice between good government and good politics, it is always the lesser motivation that wins. My vote will not change that mortifying fact about our politics.

So, what am I to do? Continuing voting in elections were my vote doesn’t count, casting my franchise in the direction of the party I dislike the least? No. The cure for this malaise must run deeper than that. It lies in a wholesale change and reinvigoration of our politics, and this is where the other tools of our democracy come into play.

My next election is in Cities of Westminster and London: Tory Majority of 11,076. Once again my vote will not count, and I feel uninclined to compromise myself by voting one way or the other as it stands, in which instance spoiling my ballot is the only course of action. What will have more impact is writing letters, campaigning on issues I believe in, and – above all – debating freely and openly without prejudice whenever and wherever there is an appetite for it. All these I must do more of, and I reckon so must a fair few of those reading this.

Suddenly, my tone has swung from the prosaic back to the romantic, and how dearly I would like the vote to be a romantic thing once more. To a certain extent, we get the politicians we deserve. Our current dearth is in part the result of our apathy. If we can reverse that, imaginatively, creatively and at every opportunity then we will be on a better path to a better future.

I am not saying “do not vote”. I am merely asking you to assess a person by the sum total of their democratic activity. After all, a person who votes as a matter of routine is on a par with the person who never goes close to a polling booth, for they have forsaken vigilance, and vigilance is demanded of us all.

Our United Future

Today is the first day of the future. But don’t worry. So is tomorrow.

For so long, this has been the implication of our politics, and for so long this is what we have grudgingly accepted. No more. From this day, this hour, this moment, we are to begin to make strides to a better state of affairs.

The seismic nature of the Scottish Independence Referendum has finally triggered genuine introspection. From this, I believe we can draw a huge amount of hopeful activity to shake up the status quo that so clearly dissatisfies the vast majority.

Just look at the turnouts in Scotland. It is nearing 90%. No General Election has come even remotely close for over 20 years. This debate has vitalised and engaged its electorate, and haven’t the rest of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland felt somewhat envious?

Huge numbers of us, be us Labour, Liberal, or Tory, Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist, or Sinn Féin have identified with the grievances and frustrations that Scots have had the fortune to be able to express, and many of us have also felt this for quite some time. Enough is enough.

It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that a disunited Britain benefits any of us. The capacity that comes from pulling together our immense resources can generate so much good. However, having travelled across this country, met people from many backgrounds, and experienced the huge levels of division that live and breathe every day in this land, it seems equally ridiculous to me to suggest that Westminster is the best place to generate policies that can benefit both London and Lanarkshire, both Guildford and Grimsby.

It is a source of immense pride that we live in a country that celebrates difference: a nation that seeks to find and fortify unity, rather than impose it from above. However, we should acknowledge that a consequence of that is that the needs of different parts of the country vary hugely from one to another. Local areas are the best informed to make their own decisions about their own needs.

We can unite, we should unite, we must unite on the things that are most important to us. We must unite for our mutual security. We must unite in order to continue to run one of the best International Development funds in the world. We must unite to pursue good whenever we can in international relations. For that we need to be together. Nevertheless, I do not think that the concerns of the Home Counties should dictate the governance of Glasgow, and I think that that is a two-way street.

Of course, the situation is more complex than that, and I cannot convey in a relatively brief blog post how I would propose to deal with the ins and outs. However, I have no doubt that it can be comprehended and conveyed. For too long, bold and brilliant ideas have been shot down as “too risky”, “too costly” and, worst of all, “too difficult to implement”. These are not sufficient arguments. To believe that they are is a failure to engage. Playing it safe has left us with a populace who are disaffected, disheartened and divided. This must stop, and now is the time.

I dream of a politics where the people feel empowered: where we can debate and feel like we can make a difference. I dream of a nation where we can see the everyday suffering that rock concerts don’t raise funds for, and think that we ourselves have the means to effect some positive change to rectify it. I dream of a politics defined by its people, inspired by its people, and valued by its people. I believe that this is within reach.

Be restless, be determined and do not relent until we have earned that system. Only we can seize it, and now is the moment.

Autumn’s Eve by Putney Bridge

Grey light over the undulating tress of the Northbank

As the river flows to the darkening East.

August 30^th, and sullen mood

Or defiant glee grips the passers-by,

Here on the South.

The workers are returning to throng

In the crowded city

With tans fading to memories

And a chill wind blowing from

Tropic Hurricanes.

Do not go my love.

You shone so fierce

So soon ago,

Unwitting of your warmth.

You remain,

Hidden behind the sky I see,

That was yester blue.

But night will come, and then

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

Creeps like dawning hope through night

To break red or gold or hidden again

On the whim of the wind.

Sonnet VI

VI

Oh be a rose that is preserved through frost,
From bloom to bloom, surviving through travails;
For though thy heart doth groan its beats through loss,
Yet make thy soul a diamond that prevails.
Just sheer affection makes me smile at thee,
When you dance through my dreams within the night;
For you’re the best of all that I do see:
A precious jewel transfigurèd with light.
Oh do not doubt that I am not alone
In thinking you most beauteous in compare.
Thou art most sweet e’en in thy darkest tone,
Like songs from birds across the coldest air.
Preserve thyself to give the world its sun.
Thou art a hope that makes all battles won.

(C) Jack Blackburn, 9th June 2014

The Dawkins Condescension

This morning, I saw the following on twitter:

It’s one of those pictures of a notable person accompanied by one of their quotes, thereby lending the words a tremendous sense of import and idolising the figure who delivered them. Very rarely to either of those elements live up to the billing lent to them by this format.

This particular one was tweeted by a fan of Richard Dawkins to the man himself, who promptly and humbly retweeted it. What makes this activity particularly odd is that both follower and leader appear to think that they are highlighting something wonderfully insightful, but the extraordinary thing about the quotation is that the insight it contains is so blindingly obvious.

Frankly, what Dawkins has noticed here is just as perceptive as noting that English people tend to have eggs and bacon for breakfast whilst Americans have pancakes. Surely it is one of the most blatantly obvious facts about the world that different cultures have, over the course of the millenia, developed different responses to the various phenomena and challenges we face, whether that be the need for calories in the morning, or dealing with human spirituality and existentialism.

The discovery that there are different religions and that they tend to be tied to particular cultures is not revelatory at all. What is fascinating is that those religions have generated so much extraordinary work in art, literature and philosophy; that they have inspired such dedication; that great thinkers have found a lot of common ground between religions and have suggested what the phenomena of religious faith might actually be about beyond a relatively primitive belief in a bearded chap in the sky.

However, Dawkins has no interest in all of this. He finds it better to be smugly superior and dismissive, whilst being facile to boot. It’s not that he doesn’t have a point. Undoubtedly, he has a number of valid contributions to make, but you cannot be considered a genuinely valuable contributor to any debate unless you are willing to engage with all of it. Dawkins needs to arrest his condescension and begin to consider the possibility that the holders of religious faith may well have many valid points of their own, and that they are a great deal more intelligent than he cares to think.

On Addiction

The shocking death of Philip Seymour Hoffman (covered on this blog yesterday) has once again brought the subject of addiction into sharp focus. Last night, Will Self gave an eloquent and personal insight into addiction and drugs, and heroin in particular, on Newsnight (a programme also worth watching for Richard Curtis’ description of the actor and his work), and what came across from his words was that the nature of addiction remains thoroughly mysterious.

At the end of last year, I wrote a rather angry piece attacking Peter Hitchens’ smug, sanctimonious and thoughtless approach to something he didn’t see as a problem so much as a crime against the self. What appals me most of all now, looking back on it, is his certainty. How can he possibly be so certain of his view of addiction, when even the most banal experience of it yields few truths and plenty of bewildering murkiness?

When I think of addiction, I first think of the extreme examples. I have never known someone who has been wrestling with an addiction to an illegal drug when I knew them. I know plenty of people who take illegal drugs. My instinctive response to a number of these individual cases is that they are playing with fire, but also that they know it. They are the lucky ones. As Self noted last night, it takes a number of decisions to get addicted to a substance.

I have known a few recovering drug addicts. The one I knew best was in fact a close family relative. After injuries in the Second World War, he was treated with an excessive amount of morphine – heroin – and became addicted. He was a private man and did not like to discuss it, but he made it clear that there was an intense agony in his recovery. This was no rehabilitation. The drug was simply and abruptly withdrawn. Given the circumstances of his exposure to the drug, he was fine once the withdrawal symptoms had passed, as he was unlikely to have any opportunity to procure anymore of the substance. Nevertheless, it was something that on some level left its scaring.

These are the extreme examples I personally know of, but they are the least of the cases of addiction of which I am aware. My family have always been heavy drinkers, my father is a heavy smoker. I know countless smokers, and have known many drinkers who can knock back a flood of the stuff in no time at all. I myself drink far too much, and my flirtations with tobacco have always led to moments of some difficulty when I decide to stop. Biochemically, I must surely be an addict. I have to think that I shouldn’t have a drink of an evening, rather than have the thought that I might like a drink occur to me on occasion. I can resist it, but there is no denying that there is a compulsion there.

The ease with which I have developed these responses means that I have no desire to toy with any further highly addictive and potentially dangerous drugs, but I like to think that it also means that I have some understanding of how easy it is to fall into such a condition. I rather hope that should Peter Hitchens’ have the clarity of mind for but a moment to see the addiction that may well be around him, he may admit that things are not as simple as his blinkered view appears to allow.

Addiction, much like that other great, human, biochemical obsession of romance, is something that we cannot escape or ignore, but also a phenomenon that we do not comprehend, despite centuries of experience, investigation and thought. Perhaps that is why there is such an extensive but utterly vague lexicon concerning it. We have competing ideas of what constitutes an “addict”, or what symptoms demonstrate that a person has a “problem” with a substance. Perhaps, like love, “you know it when you see it”, but that approach allows for numerous mistakes (in both phenomena).

We cannot sit in judgement of others on this. We must not condescend or elevate ourselves to some higher place above those who vigorously wrestle with the illness of addiction. We must educate using the rare facts that are available to us. Certain people like to think of addiction as a scourge that only afflicts the poor and the downtrodden. Even if that were the case, which it resoundingly is not, it would be no excuse for ignoring or resenting their plight. Addiction has been with us since the dawn of humankind, and it isn’t going anywhere. We are built with this vulnerability inherent within us. A crucial step must be to have the humility to acknowledge that.