Tolerance and Pluralism
Since the election my attention has been rather forcibly directed to issues of tolerance and pluralism towards alternative views.
I never minded when some of my favourite actors and comedians took a different view of politics, even to the extent when the election address from my opponent in an election came through the door with an endorsement from someone I particularly enjoy watching (David Tennant) because I believe in democracy and that absolutely requires you to accept other points of view. Sometimes, as when Eddie Izzard supported Jim Murphy during the recent election campaign at a time and place which exposed them both to virulent abuse from SNP supporters I have even admired people who were putting forward a different point of view when that took guts.
But I do mind when people start objecting to my point of view or to that point of view winning an election.
Hence David Tennant and Eddie Izzard campaigning for Labour during an election campaign is 100% legitimate and the fact that I don't agree with their politics has not stopped me from enjoying their professional work or for that matter from respecting them as people.
Charlotte Church, however, and others who took part in a protest after an election, did disgrace themselves. Campaigning for or against a particular result is one thing, protesting when more people vote for a different result suggests you think you know better than everyone else, and that's not a pretty sight.
David Mundell, re-elected as the one Tory MP in Scotland made a point in "The Scotsman" about the abuse he got from "Cybernats" and if you want to know what he was talking about you need look no further than the comments some of them have posted on his article: you can read both at
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/david-mundell-cybernats-helped-me-to-election-win-1-3782135
A couple of days ago I referred to an article on Conservative Home by Quentin Langley, an old friend from my University days, which made the point that
"A secret of our recent success: We understand the Left better than it understands us."
You can summarise his article with the words that we get their argument but think they're wrong, they think we're evil.
But just has neither right nor left has a monopoly on wisdom or on right and wrong, there are some people in all parts of the political spectrum who are just too ready to write off others on partisan grounds.
I noted on Political Betting a few days ago during a discussion on the Labour leadership that someone called Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper nonentities - someone else responded by calling David Cameron and George Osborne nonentities.
Oh, please grow up.
As it happens, there are two on that list of four people who I like and respect and two whose views I violently disagree with, and it is no surprise that this exactly fits with which party people are in.
But to describe any of the four of them, including the two I don't like or agree with, as nonentities is just ridiculous. Whatever you think about DC, he will go down with Thatcher, Blair and Wilson as one of the four most successful election winners in Britain in the century after World War II having secured the largest number of Conservative gains in an election of any Conservative leader in history (in 2010) and as one of only two sitting Prime Ministers since the war to increase both vote share and seats or go from a hung parliament to a majority (the other was Wilson - Maggie's landslide in 1983 was gained on a static vote share due to a split opposition.) No nonenty could have managed that. And like them or loathe them, it is equally silly to describe George Osborne, Andy Burnham, or Yvette Cooper as nonentities.
In a mature democracy we really ought to be able to handle people having very different views without being too quick to dismiss those views as illegitimate or evil.
The events of the last fortnight have convinced me that Britain is not as much of a mature democracy as I thought.
I never minded when some of my favourite actors and comedians took a different view of politics, even to the extent when the election address from my opponent in an election came through the door with an endorsement from someone I particularly enjoy watching (David Tennant) because I believe in democracy and that absolutely requires you to accept other points of view. Sometimes, as when Eddie Izzard supported Jim Murphy during the recent election campaign at a time and place which exposed them both to virulent abuse from SNP supporters I have even admired people who were putting forward a different point of view when that took guts.
But I do mind when people start objecting to my point of view or to that point of view winning an election.
Hence David Tennant and Eddie Izzard campaigning for Labour during an election campaign is 100% legitimate and the fact that I don't agree with their politics has not stopped me from enjoying their professional work or for that matter from respecting them as people.
Charlotte Church, however, and others who took part in a protest after an election, did disgrace themselves. Campaigning for or against a particular result is one thing, protesting when more people vote for a different result suggests you think you know better than everyone else, and that's not a pretty sight.
David Mundell, re-elected as the one Tory MP in Scotland made a point in "The Scotsman" about the abuse he got from "Cybernats" and if you want to know what he was talking about you need look no further than the comments some of them have posted on his article: you can read both at
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/david-mundell-cybernats-helped-me-to-election-win-1-3782135
A couple of days ago I referred to an article on Conservative Home by Quentin Langley, an old friend from my University days, which made the point that
"A secret of our recent success: We understand the Left better than it understands us."
You can summarise his article with the words that we get their argument but think they're wrong, they think we're evil.
But just has neither right nor left has a monopoly on wisdom or on right and wrong, there are some people in all parts of the political spectrum who are just too ready to write off others on partisan grounds.
I noted on Political Betting a few days ago during a discussion on the Labour leadership that someone called Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper nonentities - someone else responded by calling David Cameron and George Osborne nonentities.
Oh, please grow up.
As it happens, there are two on that list of four people who I like and respect and two whose views I violently disagree with, and it is no surprise that this exactly fits with which party people are in.
But to describe any of the four of them, including the two I don't like or agree with, as nonentities is just ridiculous. Whatever you think about DC, he will go down with Thatcher, Blair and Wilson as one of the four most successful election winners in Britain in the century after World War II having secured the largest number of Conservative gains in an election of any Conservative leader in history (in 2010) and as one of only two sitting Prime Ministers since the war to increase both vote share and seats or go from a hung parliament to a majority (the other was Wilson - Maggie's landslide in 1983 was gained on a static vote share due to a split opposition.) No nonenty could have managed that. And like them or loathe them, it is equally silly to describe George Osborne, Andy Burnham, or Yvette Cooper as nonentities.
In a mature democracy we really ought to be able to handle people having very different views without being too quick to dismiss those views as illegitimate or evil.
The events of the last fortnight have convinced me that Britain is not as much of a mature democracy as I thought.
Comments
I would say that, at any point, one can legitimately protest a policy that was not in the manifesto. I think it is also legitimate to protest a policy where you can make a reasonable case that circumstances have changed - for example that the consequences are somewhat different from those anticipated.
It is at least arguable that it is legitimate to protest any policy at all, just not to protest the outcome of an election or referendum just as at law you can appeal the decision of a judge but not a jury.
A lot better than "Waa! The evil Tories have won, it's not fair"!
If, for example, you had the Ferdinand Marcos syndrome and clear evidence that the declared election result was not the votes actually cast but instead were the product of a massive electoral fraud, you'd not just be entitled to protest but right to do so.
And although I don't consider first-past-the-post to be perfect, it is the system which we have used in this country for centuries and had been supported by the electorate in a referendum only four years ago - and if anything, the boundaries were actually biased against the party that won, so complaining about the electoral system doesn't cut it.
In the absence of a really strong reason to argue that an election result was invalid, the mere passage of time will not really turn a protest against it from silly to sensible.