Duplicity

The dictionary definition of duplicity: deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter; double-dealing.

Having ridden roughshod over the wishes of the majority of UK voters by introducing homosexual marriage, that same government has now dropped their plans for minimum pricing for alcohol, and also plain packaging for cigarettes.

There was a major consultation on homosexual marriage, and the results were fudged to give the answer the politicians wanted. Many thousands of responses were discounted because they were sponsored by churches. The Bill should never had made it into the statute books, but it was pushed through the Commons and the Lords, and back to the Commons to be made law. I will accept the law, even though I don’t agree with it, because we live in a democracy. However I still wonder how the law made it through, when the majority didn’t want it and made their mind known, or didn’t care?

Then there are the policies of minimum pricing of alcohol, and plain packaging for cigarettes. Both were flagship health improvements which would help the welfare of the nation in years to come. It was almost given as self evident and supported by health professionals and law enforcement officers equally . Less alcohol sold equals fewer deaths, domestic fights, and visits to A&E, plus safer homes for children. Making cigarettes look less desirable means fewer cases of lung cancer in life for many youngsters who might never start to smoke.

Why did the same sex marriage bill make it into law, and the alcohol and tobacco programs get dropped, not to even be debated? I suggest it’s down to voices which shout louder than any ordinary citizen who participates in a consultation. Those loud voices who shout that there is no evidence that tobacco or alcohol causes disease and death. They shout loudest, who can whisper in the itching ears of our law making politicians. This is undeniably the common factor in all three examples. If I was disillusioned with those in power in our nation before, I am disgusted now. I think these recent events give the best example of duplicity I could find, but the Bible was already there speaking words of truth in these verses: For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather round them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:3,4 NIV

UK Elections

2011 UK, Scottish and Welsh Elections

May 5^th, 2011 will see parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales, and a UK referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV). As a non party political member, I felt it would be helpful to provide a light hearted look at the words and phrases, used by all politicians of all parties, and a guide to what they really mean! Here are a few. You will have your own, which you are welcome to add.....

'Clearly'. ...as clear as mud but I will dress it up in jargon so that you have no excuse but to know what I think I mean, but am not really sure about.

'I have always been clear about this'. ...still clear as mud, but the politician will now make you feel (without actually saying so) a numpty for not seeing it in the first place. Don't feel bad. The thing being clarified will still not be clear, as this word can be replaced by another simpler word, 'waffle'!
'What I hear on the doorstep is..'.... This is a great way to turn a bad conversation or question around to their way of thinking. Of course doorsteps don't have names, and so the claims cannot be verified. I think a milkman will hear more on the doorstep, than any politician.

'We have to ensure'... A great way to make you think they will do something about the problem being discussed. It's a great and vague way of seeming to address something important, but not actually having any solution. In other words, they know as much as you. Actually, you will know more than them, but they will find this hard to accept.

'I have always said'... Probably said to the dog while out walking, or in the shower where no one else listens, or to the yes-men and yes-women who surround them and bask in the glow of their presence.

'I am calling for'... Sounds like a yodel from an Austrian mountain. All politicians will call for something in their career, but we all know (they don't) it's who will listen that's important, and even more important again, who will do something about it! Anyone can 'call' but it takes someone special to 'do', and they are few and far between in the ranks of the Scottish Parliament, or even any government body... including the Westminster Government.

'We will set up a committee'... A good way to put off making any decisions right now, while making it look like the obvious solution (which will be hard to implement) might not be the right one.

'Let's be careful not to offend'... Wow, this is one of the best ones. They will hide behind the PC excuse, which allows the minority groups to take over while the majority view is ignored. What is democracy, if not the wishes of the majority(duh?)... except when we might offend someone, or a minority group. Now run over in your mind the types of people or groups who get most protection from this? Certainly not the mainstream voting majority.

'We will make the difficult decisions'... No they won't! These decisions are difficult, and therefore political suicide. So there is talk about decisions being difficult, but little or no action. Difficult solutions are needed for difficult decisions, so difficult decisions will be made to choose which difficult decisions will be made! (Hope you were able to follow :). That is why there is little or no action taken of real importance.

'Manifesto promise'... This is different from all other promises. When other mortals make a promise, their word is their bond and can be counted on. Not so for the politician. As long as it is written in a manifesto document, it is open to being broken at will, because you can count on them saying 'but the situation has changed since the intention (it's not a promise at this point) was made'.

'No, what I said/meant was'... At this point you know you have them on the ropes. You have reminded them of their words during an unguarded moment, and it is a sinful pleasure to watch them squirm as they try to wheedle their way out of it.
'I've done nothing wrong'... Literally means, I am as guilty as sin!

So what method can we use to help us decide which person or party to vote for? How about things like....
Not arrogant
Not ashamed of their roots or Christian faith
Stays faithful to their spouse and family
Honest with expenses and allowances

Has a good track record of moral and ethical integrity.

Another look at this list tells you that there is not a party political element to it. There is, however, something about honesty and integrity which should be the bedrock of anyone serving in public office. Let's go for a choice along those lines, then whoever it may be, male or female, from whatever party, we are best placed to get a good return on our vote. So go out there and make your mark on the ballot paper, and make a difference, while thanking God for this freedom!

Hung or Balanced?

"We will work in the country's best interest". If I hear those words again, the TV might end up in the garden. I am beginning to ask myself if these politicians button up the back, or worse if they think we do! While these top leaders smile and say those words, they remain loyal to their own political beliefs and themes. 
An older statesman said that "these guys are tribal, and when the dust settles, they will become tribal again". That about sums it up. To get to the top level in politics, there are some characteristics which are essential, and being a master of deceit is top of that list. They also need to have an ego the size of Dumbarton Rock, so although the Tories and the Lib Dems are in 'unity' discussions, we need to bear in mind that they are there for their own good, and if it happens to appear to be in the national interest, then all to the good, but the national interest does not come first.
Meanwhile the Cinderella of the piece, Gordon Brown, is waiting in the wings for his 'knight' to give him a call to save him too. So where is the national interest here? I just wanted the election to be the end of the whole thing, but we have to suffer it longer now. Most commentators suggest there will be another UK election in a matter of months, so we will have to go through it all again, so what does that tell you about the permanence of the best arrangement the senior politicians can come up with? Not a lot, eh?
Back to the subject. Hung or balanced? Ah, but does that relate to the parliament, or the politicians? You decide....

Getting Nasty

There is only a short 48 hours until the nation goes to the polls to determine the nature of the next government. I have already voted, using my postal vote, but most other folks will take a trip to the polling stations on Thursday 6 May 2010!


You must have noticed that all the candidates are getting as much as they can into the last few hours of their campaigns. After all, when a balanced or hung parliament is very possible, it is understandable that they are out campaigning hard for every vote, and rightly so.


The side of the campaign which I am finding more and more distasteful, is the way the media is conducting themselves. They have had a great time over the past few weeks, basking in their own piece of reflected glory, as they look for gaffes and headlines, but it is starting to turn nasty. Very nasty. I notice that every TV presenter wants to put every politician under as much pressure as possible, and it doesn't really matter how they do it, or what tactics they use. 


The people I refer to are Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman in particular, but the attitude applies across the board. It's like they are in the death throes of the election, and want a bit of publicity for themselves. I am no sympathiser for the politicians, but can these interviewers not let them speak for themselves, without continually putting words into their mouths? Having followed most of the election programming so far, all I can say is, thank goodness it is almost over, because I have had just about enough of the big headed, arrogant, loud, 'see me' interviewers that I can take. 


At this point I now see the media as worse than the politicians (even the bad ones), and that is saying something!!

Playground Fights

I couldn't believe my eyes. There in the playground were two heads of department, arguing violently about the merits of their own areas of 'expertise'. There they were facing each other in full view, hurling insults at each other, while many of their department members stood behind their leader yelling their approval, and almost baying for blood! This is so humiliating for the others watching. There were people there who had nothing to do with the fight, but previously had been asked to join the parent/student committees by these same leaders! Who can blame them from walking away?


These people should know better. They are 'pillars of our society' and should be looked up to, and not allow themselves to be lowered to a level that the kids are given conduct cards for. I wonder who will reprimand the heads of department? Eventually, the Head Teacher came out and told them to behave, and quieten down. The Head Teacher finished what he was saying, and these same two people immediately started at each other again with their insults, and personal abuse. The trouble is, I couldn't actually understand what it was they were arguing about, so it was all in vain!


Ok, so now replace the playground with the floor of the House of Commons, the arguing teachers with the leaders of the major political parties, and the Head Teacher with the Speaker of the House. See what I mean? They behave like kids in the playground. Actually, kids in the playground don't even behave like that, even with those they don't see eye to eye with! These same leaders expect us, the spectators, to vote for them and their party. Why? Why should anyone vote for someone who behaves like that? Don't they realise there will be a General Election very soon?


I would like to see a rational debate, with real questions and answers. Not 'political replies' which always seem to side step the most basic and sometimes obvious answers. Why can't these very clever (but not very wise) leaders learn to behave responsibly, just like we train and educate our own children to act? Is that really too much to ask? Answers on a postcard, please!!