Not Mid Morning Matters

So it’s ‘a land of hope and Tory’ or ‘Britain, we can do better than this’. Is it me or is there more than a hint of blue versus red coming up on the horizon? Might this get you and I involved in the debate about which way we want to country to go after May 2015?

The debate I had on my radio programme this week about women in politics being so poorly represented was very interesting. The facts are stark. In Parliament there are just 146 female MP’s out of 650 and in two councils in the West women struggle to reach 25% of total councillors. And all of this is against the backdrop of the vote for women being 100 not out, equality legislation being in place for almost 40 years and women making up 51% of the population.

Something is wrong.

Is it that it is a ‘man’s world’, white, middle class and women can’t break through that often discussed and deployed glass ceiling? That is just too easy an excuse and frankly insulting to women, and to men. The argument that men employ in their own image is dated, tired and will never win against the reality of women achieving what they feel they want to achieve. If it really is that simple the courts would be full as the equality laws are there to protect women and men too.

There are fundamental differences between the sexes (apart from the obvious) and rather than trying to constantly seek sexual parity, those very differences should be encouraged, celebrated, nurtured and used for the benefit of all. Rather than the ‘ists’ demanding the same rights and, by default, the same opportunities, maybe we should all use ALL our gender differences and celebrate those differences to encourage women to take part in politics, business or the community. Its culture, not sex and culture is the responsibility of both sexes.

One thing for certain is that ‘having it all’ is not an option as it will never work. The human condition is that the more you have the more you want, so whether you are a man or a woman you will never be happy.

A real difference that comes up again and again is that men ‘do’ while women think and then ‘do’. You see this with instructions for making something. Men will invariably just crack on and make it happen while women will read the instructions and then make it happen. The result is the same, mostly, but women consider the result and the route before embarking more than men.

The constant men versus women feminist charge of ‘it’s not good enough’ and ‘something must be done’ never really deals with the many ‘whys’ and fails to appeal the majority who feel ‘I’m all right thanks, my gender is not an issue to me so leave me alone, please’. Are women who want to be mothers and stay at home doing that most vital role wrong, letting down the sisterhood? Men can do that role too. I would love the chance.

The biggest danger of all is that someone decides to set a target or a quota or we end up with positive discrimination for women. That just makes the situation worse for everyone, creates resentment and perpetuates ‘the fight’ the ‘ists’ love to have. And positive discrimination is still discrimination, and that is wrong for all those who are excluded.

There is one more thing that may upset feminists. Some women, maybe the majority of women just don’t want to be part of the equality world because they rather like the world they have.Does that make them wrong? Feminism, which I fully support, has given women many valuable things that they wouldn’t otherwise have, but to challenge women that they are not doing enough and still blaming men for not allowing them to do it is just not good enough, a bit like not cleaning behind the fridge.

In the last week we have learnt that Twitter will go the way of Facebook. It will be floated on the stock market and it will make heaps of cash for its creators. What started as a wacky idea, so the story is told or should that be sold to you and me, evolves into another bit of social media growing up and coming of age, with a very big price tag. That great modern voice of today is wrong on this one. It is about the money, money, money.

Millions of people have got on board the social media trend; they have friends and followers and judge themselves by the numbers of friends and followers they have. And if you don’t have enough, you can actually buy some. Then you can have even more friends and followers hanging on your every update, like or tweet as you share your world with all those who you may naively think are hanging on your every thought, word, deed, and tweet. Is this the 21st century at its best?

No.

Then there is the appalling bullying on social media, by cowards and rampant ‘ists’ who hide behind silly names and ridiculous prejudices or twisted views of reasonable ideas or faiths. See my earlier blog on ‘isms’ and ‘ists’.

The painful reality for you and me is that we have actually got few real friends and those who aren’t real friends don’t really give a stuff about you. A real friend is the one you call at 3am and they say ‘where are you’ and ‘I’m coming to get you’.

Social media is a con trick, pure and simple. Have you ever responded to an advert? Have you ever clicked on a link and thought ‘I must have that’? At best it may subtly influence you but there is no tangible link between adverts on social media and success. Please prove me wrong. Please. I beg of you.

But there is a bigger con that is on here. It is one of self-delusion and one that, if you really think about it, is true. NOTHING beats talking with real friends face to face or on the phone, telling real friends about a book, film, new restaurant, your latest change of washing up liquid. They know you speak the truth. Followers and friends on social media will never ever have that power yet social media cries this power to you. The reality is that it’s nothing more than the King’s new clothes and I call it ‘in the altogether’.

The value of Twitter, Facebook, et al is spreading information to the like minded and that’s it big win. You can let people know what is happening, a 21st century notice board or parish magazine, but nothing else. It is certainly not source of real friends or followers. Ask yourself this one last question. How many of these digital hoards and digital hangers would you invite into your home for dinner?

One last point that shows social media does have some value. In the last three weeks four stories have been covered on my daily BBC programme thanks to twitter and tweets sent to me, and there are two more stories coming to the boil, one of which will be very big indeed. I can say no more now but I will, on twitter (which is linked to Facebook) when I can.

It is that party conference time of year again and chances are you couldn’t give stuff.

Much like bankers, whether you like them or not, you need politicians. Yet never have we been so disengaged with politics as a nation. More people are members of the RSPB than are members of the main Westminster political parties. Birds get us going but running our country, paying tax, social responsibility, security, health, education… ‘Not me mate, I’m twitching’ or trying to give a badger with a bad cough a good home. Maybe we should elect a Great Tit or a badger to parliament. Might that get your vote?

As the political parties try and work out how they are going to get the money they need to do their work and to convince us that there ideas and policies are best for us, we the majority frankly don’t seem to care. If you can name five principles that each of the three main political parties stand for then you are better than me and, I’d venture, most of their dwindling membership and MPs.

The cost of politics is ridiculous and how any party can try and outspend the other just to make their point seems silly if not futile. An idea costs nothing and a good idea is priceless. So a political party selling its ideas and putting itself in hock to do so is, frankly, potty.

Now it looks likley that, thanks to the spat that Labour is having with the very hands that not only feed it but created it in the first place, all parties are going to have to review how they are funded and are facing taking the big money out of politics. This means it will be down to the little money, or you and me to pay for it.

If election turnout is anything to go by (and just look at the local council, Police and Crime Commissioner or Bristol Mayor elections held in the West in the last 12 months to see just how bad it has got) it all feels like paying for a gym membership you never use; a good idea at the time but on reflection, you can’t be bothered.

Here is an idea and it’s free. If you want us to vote, for us to pay for democracy then make it about something we can either believe in or campaign against. Make politics about ideas that stimulate debate and not about playing spot the miniscule difference between the parties.

Our politicians are mostly good people, drawn to public service and the real desire to make an actual difference but their respective party seems to stop all that. Most of all our politicians need to make us think, make us care, make is talk and make us debate. Some do and you can name them but what most of them do at the moment is make us think ‘what is the point’, and that is not the democracy that so many have died for to protect.

Never mind the ‘ism’; it’s the 'ists' you need to worry about..

Whatever the ‘ism’ is, it is never the problem. It is the ‘ists’ that cause the problem. ‘Isms’ explore ideas and principles, promote thought and discussion, make points or reveal injustice and can give reasoning to concepts and ideas. ‘Isms’ give us all greater understanding of others and their beliefs, a chance to understand ideals, ideas, principles and how it works. Or the ‘ism’ affords you an opportunity to consider how it doesn’t. All good so far.

Here is where it goes wrong. ‘Ists’ are advocates for their ‘ism’. They talk about it, believe it to be true (nothing wrong with that) campaign for it, fight for it, die for it, kill for it and, in most cases, they never waver from their ‘ism’ because they believe their ‘ism’ is right regardless of who listens, who cares or who doesn’t. And there is nothing wrong with this either.

It is when the ‘ist’ becomes the ism, when the ‘ist’ believes that only there ‘ism’ is right, the only right way. And this is where it all goes very wrong.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with any ‘ism’; Islamism, feminism, conservatism, radicalism, the list goes on. It is those who become the ‘ist’ to the ‘ism’ that I find increasingly tedious and, in some cases, dangerous. These ‘ists’ don’t seem to want to engage in debate or discussion; they just seem to think they are right. No, they know they are right and if you don’t believe in their ‘ism’, you are wrong. And if you have the temerity challenge the ‘ist’ on their ‘ism’ they attack you. Look at the recent activity on twitter and other social media. All VERY far from social.

Surely if we continue to allow any ‘ist’ to go unchallenged it is freedom of speech that loses. We have a duty to protect the ideal of any ‘ism’ but we also have the duty to robustly challenge the ‘ist’.

They won’t like it but if their principles are sound and their chosen ‘ism’ is true then open, fair and reasoned discussion and debate is the way forward. Any ‘ist’ who can’t or won’t engage is this really needs to explore their own inadequacies and not hide behind the ‘ism’ that is seemingly giving them sucker. They are letting down there ‘ism’, there and beliefs and the others who support them too, and we should ignore them.

The best ‘ist’ is the one open to debate and challenge, or a silent one.

Freedom of speech must have a name..