Voting may be bad for your health

Well, that's that done.

My participation in the democratic process of a state I don't agree with is over for another 4 or 5 years (or less, depending how badly they screw it up). 

I have to say, being an undecided isn't easy.  Even though I was 90% sure who I was voting for, I still took a full 2 or 3 minutes looking at the paper before I put a cross in a box.  And walking home (which took less time than I spent in the polling booth) I considered what I'd just done.  And felt a little sick in the stomach

Voting is underestimated in its importance.  I mean, yes, people fought battles, people died to allow us to vote freely and fairly - and of course people shouldn't take that lightly - and most don't.  But my point is more about democracy itself.

Churchill said democracy was the worst system, except for all the others that had been tried.  And its true - it is by no means perfect.  Rousseau was not a fan of representative democracy, of people taking an active interest and role in politics only once every four or five years, of instilling their trust in one person to represent their views, to vote on legislation in their place for a period of time until a further plebiscite should take place.

As I reflected on my way home that 62 million (or even 5 million in Scotland) is probably too large for direct democracy, I thought about what I had just done. I had given my vote not to someone whom I believed would vote the way I would on legislation (though, in hindsight, he probably will) nor to someone with whom I identified fully.  No, I'd actually given my vote to someone who, like Churchill and democracy, was the "least worst" candidate. 

And I was disappointed with myself.  Not for my choice - I've agonised over this one for weeks, months even.  I was disappointed with the choice presented to me, the system within which my voice was to be heard (and, ironically, one of the main reasons I voted the way I did).  

The least worst option my choice may have been.  But it was not the best, and that proves to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that reform is needed.

When I got home, I washed my hands.

Read more...

What matters?

I have a problem.  Its getting difficult to hide it now.  I'm embarrassed about it.  I walk down the street and see other people who don't look like they have the same problem and I feel like I'm the only one.  I've decided I have to just come out and say it:


I'm a genuine undecided.

I have a problem on so many levels.  I'm pro-independence - both at national and individual level - which makes me a liberal and conservative nationalist.  I'm green too.  I preach to my students that a General Election is just that - 650 different elections on the same day so it strikes me that I should look at the candidates in my own constituency.  But then this is going to be a close election, fine margins will make the difference and therefore the bigger picture matters too.  Who will form the government?  Will it be a majority or minority - or a coalition?  Will my vote matter?

And so my choice takes stock of the UK level, the leaders, the policies, the TV debates.  But then, not all of what they say is relevant to me - health, education, transport policies are true for England, but not for Scotland.  I'm impressed with "Dave" - though others are not, I find him genuine and fresh - a 2010 Tony Blair (though we know how that ended).  I was impressed too with Nick Clegg in the debate - though he was not challenged too much on policy, he could only play the opponents who were against him.  Less impressed with Gordon Brown - I think he's really had his chance, and made a bit of a mess.  

But should impressions of these three matter?  I mean, yes, one of them will be PM, but I'm unlikely to ever meet them, much less have any reason to write to them.  Yes, they will shape the country for the next 4/5 years (or 6 months if it is that tight).  But they won't shape my local area, and that matters too.

I'm currently represented by a Labour MP, who has - occasionally - voted against his government, but not as often as I would like.  According to the multitude of Lib Dem leaflets I have collected over the past few weeks, only they can beat Labour here.  Which is true - to an extent, but only if people vote for them.  I'm really not a huge fan of the SNP candidate here, and while I appreciate some of what Cameron says about the Tories, I haven't heard anything from their candidate.  I also have the choice of a Green candidate here, and if it were a PR election undoubtedly they would get more consideration, but they are probably squeezed out of my thinking on the back of how tight the whole thing is going to be.

So, I'm asking - what should matter more?  Local or national (or international)?  Individual or collective?  Policy or projection?  Style or substance?  And will it make a difference either way?

I'm in dire need.  Please take some time out of your day to help.

Yours truly, 

Confused, Edinburgh


PS - this supposed to help you decide to vote... and they are all right - it is time to make your mind up.  Easier said than done though!

Read more...

In praise of Malcolm Chisholm MSP

I think Jeff has beaten me to the punch on this post, but I've written it now so I'm posting it too!

As a politico geek sado-masochist I spent yesterday morning watching the full Scottish Parliamentary debate on the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

I expected the worst - petty political point-scoring on an issue that pretty much divides Scotland. And in some contributions I got what I expected. The party leaders - even and especially the First Minister - were at it. Richard Baker looked like a child at a grown-up party, knowing he was out of his depth. Sandra White couldn't resist sticking the needle in. Christine Grahame misjudged her audience in her attempts to persue the issue of whether al-Megrahi was even guilty. And Elaine Murray emphasised that my previous post on the matter was right on the money. The sheer emotion and anger with which she spoke evidence enough that emotion must be removed from the equation if a sober and rational decision on a delicate issue such as this can be taken.

But then, as ever on occasions such as this, there are those who stand out, who recognise the gravity of the situation and step up to the challenge. For me, several of the contributions yesterday merit mention on this score. Green leader Patrick Harvie was eloquent, reasoned and sincere. Lib Dem Justice Spokesman Robert Brown was measured and assured, Michael McMahon and David McLetchie focused. The two doctors, Ian McKee and Richard Simpson, were informative on their specialist areas. All provided reasonable points, defending their party line on the decision.

And then there was Malcolm Chisholm. He stood up and spoke from his conscience. He agreed with the decision and suggested (with polling figures to hand) that around 35% of his Labour colleagues (though not necessarily those in the parliament) did too. He told the chamber that he accepted the need for compassion in this case, accepted that the decision was not taken lightly and that, in his mind, it was the right one. And then he turned on his party, telling the chamber that he would vote with the government in the evening and that he thought the vote should be free from party whipping. In the event, he was the only MSP who broke ranks as the (heavily amended) government motion was carried by 73 (Lab/ LD/ Con) votes to 50 (SNP/ Green/ Chisholm) with one abstention (Margo).

I should point out that I have a lot of time for Malcolm Chisholm (and not just because of his rather excellent first name). In 2006, when he resigned as Communities Minister (in Jack McConnell's Scottish Executive) over the issue of Trident replacement, I wrote to him commending him for having the courage of his convictions and voting with his conscience rather than his party. He wrote back, thanking me for what was one of the few emails he'd received in support and suggesting that he hoped others would start listening to "experts" like me (I was a Masters student in Terrorism and International Relations at the time). So the man has a history of doing what he thinks right - even if that is at odds with his party. And yesterday was no different.

But I had a wee thought about his future as an MSP. Of course, I don't think he's in any danger of being deselected by Labour - don't be ridiculous. But a wee suggestion. By the time of the next Scottish Parliament election in May 2011, Malcolm Chisholm will be 62. Now, that is not old for an MSP. But he is defending a majority of just 2,500 in Edinburgh North & Leith. Which, as we know from the European election, is an incredibly tight seat, with five parties separated by only 1,000 votes (and indeed, in that election, Labour knocked down to second). According to his website, he also holds surgeries every Satuday (more than most MSPs). That's a busy schedule for an MSP over 60.

No, I'm wondering whether Malcolm Chisholm might decide that three terms as an MSP for Edinburgh North & Leith might just be enough for him. I mean, might yesterday's defiance of the party line have signalled his intention - that he no longer sees himself needing to conform to the party line? It's just a thought - and it seems to fit. Though I'd suggest that, given the constituency may well provide some excitement on election night, and that he is a weel kent face around the constituency, Labour may be loathe to allow him to retire. In saying that, there'd be no shortage of Labour candidates putting their name forward for the seat I'd wager - Lesley Hinds, Gordon Munro, Ewan Aitken, perhaps even the blogosphere's Kezia Dugdale. So, I guess, watch this space.

In the meantime, praise be to Malcolm Chisholm, the only MSP brave enough to break party lines yesterday. Parliament (and Scotland) needs free thinkers like him.

Read more...