Prime Minister: 2009 has been a year of deep reflection – a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain’s fight against the darkness of dictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.
Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.
Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can’t put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.
I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s most
famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.
But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices – that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.
So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.
Gordon Brown

If only all the responses to the surveys were so precise and to the point. Maybe cynicism in politics and with politicians would be lower.

Just because I say (as I have in the real world) that the NHS doesn’t do a particularly good or efficient job does not mean to suggest I am criticising the NHS’s staff or that I think it is anything but a moral imperative that people are treated for injuries and ailments regardless of their ability to pay. It’s just that I believe that the inevitable redundancy required in genuine competition would provide a better, more efficient and, if well-regulated, a fairer healthcare solution for the British people.

There are many problems in the UK which result in our current levels of excessive taxation, and the NHS is just one of the bigger of those problems. Even if people thought that the current levels of taxation were reasonable, shouldn’t we have at least one service provided by them that is world class?

Political Compass

But the line that triggered it is typically considered politician-poison. And why? Because we have a system which relies upon people who are not intelligent enough to listen to an argument before deciding whether the argument is cogent or not. That system, in case it’s not clear, is democracy using First Past The Post and political parties. Ya boo sucks and I’ll do what I like while wearing this red/blue/yellow rosette and see if you can do anything about it.

The sentence that caused the ‘It’s liberating’ comment?

“I don’t know anything.”

I could claim to know that I believe it is wrong to treat particular sections of society differently to others on the basis of some arbitrary feature or idiosyncrasy. But would I follow my argument to any logical conclusions or would I reach, at some philosophical point, a point where I would have to add a proviso?

If I was interviewed about my political beliefs I could not defend any pre-written ideology to the end. I could not claim to be more able to follow philosophical, moral, cultural or political arguments past the first few bends in the road than the next person. And, actually, very few people have ever been able to. It is why, actually, Greek philosophers and philosophers from a long time ago are still read, enjoyed and debated — there are no right answers.

Politicians in interviews inevitably end up not answering questions. It’s not because they’re stupid, more stupid than the interviewer or, even, because they’re wrong. It’s because it’s bloody hard to make a point that cannot be argued against. And the media that tries to trip politicians up isn’t helping push on the argument.

When a politician says “I believe gay marriage is fair” he’s saying that he does not believe in discriminating arbitrarily against homosexuals. He is not saying that he understands the cultural imperative of marriage (because I’m not sure I do), he’s not saying that it is wrong for a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) to cohabit, he’s not saying that he thinks that the bible is wrong or right, he’s not saying that everyone should like his opinion and he’s not saying “this is what my party thinks”…

He’s saying that he believes gay couples can be as in love as straight couples and they should be allowed to publicly express this in the same manner.

Okay, I know I went off on a tangent about homosexuality but I know it’s a particular divide between the so-called right and the so-called left.

Skip advert

Offensive material: The site linked to below is definitely for mature people only.

So back to my original point:

Can we please stop employing interviewers who are after soundbites. Can we please stop quoting soundbites in the ‘news’. And can we please use the BBC (a public service broadcaster afterall) to remind people that at all elections except those to the EU ‘parliament’ we are voting for individuals not parties.

I am a Conservative Councillor but that doesn’t mean I agree with any more than a certain proportion of what David Cameron, John Redwood, Ken Clarke and William Hague believe. It doesn’t mean I agree with any more than a certain proportion of what Adur District Council’s leaders believe and it doesn’t mean that I can be pigeon-holed. In fact I am sure there are Liberal Democrat, UKIP and Green politicians who I share more beliefs with than I do with some Conservatives.

I stood for the Conservatives at the last election to my Ward in Adur and I am still pleased I did that. I shall make an announcement at some stage about my plans for next May (2010) when my seat will next be contested. But if I do contest that seat base your decision on me, not on my party affiliation and not on what the Council as a whole does or does not do (which is a whole other post).

1. Greed
2. Envy
3. Lust
4. Gluttony
5. Pride
6. Wrath
7. Sloth

Now having listed those, let me sling something into your consciousness: most right-wing parties in Europe and the Americas tend to be Christian parties.

Surely if right-wing parties are more often the home of Christians in politics, the policies of right-wing parties must suit those people’s morals? But doesn’t the ‘Loads-a-money’ caricature of 80s Conservativism stinks rather of gluttony, pride and envy?

In fact post-Thatcher Britain has been struck by all of these ’sins’. Aside from those with eating disorders, I would have thought that everyone has sinned with greed (and those with eating disorders, religion tells us with no hint of sympathy, have sinned with pride). Anyone who enters the lottery and does not intend on giving away all but what they ‘need’ has sinned with envy and would sin with gluttony. Everyone who has watched a football match and willed their own team on is verging on wrath.

I know of no man who has not noticed in an inappropriate way (for the sin of lust) an attractive woman (or man — although homosexuality and religion really don’t like being in the same sentence). And those of us with a mirror in their bathroom have at least a little pride.

In fact, of the ’sins’ on that list, wrath is best avoided (but is a character trait for some) and envy is truly unpleasant. Aside from those two, I would proudly admit to having committed them all!

Maybe Conservatives and Christians are similar in not thinking about some aspects of life in any detail: How many of us can name, for instance, a deeply religious (Christian) person who has not read the bible? How many of us can name a strongly Conservative person who would secretly admit to believing homosexuality is unnatural? I would suggest that both these positions are illogical and so fit well together in the same person.

New Testament Christians, if they agreed with Jesus tipping the tables in the synagogue, if they agreed that gluttony, greed and pride are sins, if they believe there’s something metaphysically bigger, really should be socialists or libertarians.

G20 police assault video
G20 police assault (other angle)

What a state the UK has come to where a Conservative feels the way I do.

(Although maybe that’s because I am an unusual Conservative).

But some Conservatives have adopted an odd position on the issue. They are against the Park because they believe that local Councils should be allowed to maintain planning controls over their local areas without the interference of the government and/or those who run the Park.

This is befuddling because of two issues:
1. The public clearly support the South Downs being a National Park and so, against the run of play, they are putting political opinion above vote-buying. I’d be impressed except that the Conservatives against the Park are wrong:
2. Local Councils do not have planning controls.

Let me explain (2).

First, people think it is a good thing that elected people help make planning decisions. I think not, actually, given the current framework. The grounds for granting or denying permission are very specific. There is little lee-way within the rules to refuse an application that the public are strongly and demonstrably against. If a Council has the audacity to deny an application on non-planning grounds then after a potentially expensive appeal the decision will likely go the way of the applicant. And to hell with the opinions of the people or the people they have elected to represent them.

Skip Ad

Second, I am not convinced that Joe Public vote for politicians; they pathetically vote for the colour of the rosette in an almost tribal fashion. I am convinced that in the vast majority of so-called ’safe’ seats, a homophobic, racist, misogynist could get elected for any of the three major parties in local government. In fact, looking at many Councillors, the public clearly have no idea what they’re voting for.

How can the public trust local Councils to protect the South Downs when it is run by illogical people with too much spare time who, in any case, do not have the power that they would need.

Any Councillor who, if they read this, thinks I am talking about them can safely assume I am — but know that I am not talking about all or even the majority of Councillors in any particular area. And those who do not fit this description also know who they are.

A National Park is the only way to protect the South Downs from SEEDA and from impossible decisions foisted upon local Councils.

I will leave you with a final thought. Wealden District Council denied planning permission for a disabled soldier’s bungalow application. Do you think the Councillors when making that decision thought to themselves “Sod him, he fought for Queen and country, but rules are rules” or do you think that, hamstrung by rules from outside, they made the only decision they could? So much for democratic accountability.