Other Political News: Saarland Election Reults.

Yesterday, Saarland went to the polls. Saarland elects by a proportional list system, with the state split into three areas, any party gaining over 5% gets a share of the 51 seats.

As the opinion polls predicted the FDP Liberal party were wiped out, losing all five of their seats and going down from 9% of the vote to  1.2%. Their former partners in the coalition with the CDU, the Green Party were down 0.9% to 5% losing one of their three seats, and The Left were down 5.2% to 16.1% of the vote losing two of their seats.

The winners are the Christian Democrats- Angela Merkel’s party, who went up by 0.7% meaning they retain their 19 seats and their direct rivals the SPD (Social Democratic party) who didn’t do as well as the opinion polls predicted, but nevertheless went up by 6.1% to 30.6% giving them 17 seats. The big winners being the Pirate Party who went from nowhere to 7.4% gaining themselves 4 seats.

The Pirate Party in Saarland is a very young party, in terms of the time established, outlook and membership. Their leader is Jasmin Maurer who is 22 years old.

The CDUs leader in Saarland, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer now has to find coalition partners from their opponent groups.

Meanwhile the leader of “The Left” is blaming their losses on the pirates of stealing their votes, and the leader of the Free Democrats is putting their electoral collapse down to internal divisions.

(For a full list of all 11 parties competing see my post here).

Christians in the media

Much has been made of the recent case in the media of a gay couple who won damages against the owners of a B&B.

The couple were extreme Christians applying a personal interpretation of Christian values to their guest-house. Their views are far from normal, even among Christians. Actually even among the sub-set of Christians who have a problem with other people being gay. That’s not to say believing sex outside marriage to be wrong is rare, and believing homosexuality to be a sin of some degree is not, relatively, common. It’s just that most decent, caring, Christians do not seek to impose those values on others.

As someone who was brought up in a loving, caring Christian family, I worry about the fall out from this sort of case. It always seems to be the nasty, dogmatic kind of Christian, who’s just that little bit weird. It never seems to be your normal, church-going caring christian, who has come up against some silly aspect of dogmatic secularism. Even though some religious leaders claim religious people are under attack from dogmatic secularists, these sort of cases demonstrate nothing of the sort.

There are plainly a large number of people who have prejudices and look for reasons to back them up. The Bulls’ are so clearly such a couple that I shudder when I read about their personal views, even extrapolated from Christianity as they are, being misrepresented as Christian values.

I worry about the popular view of Christianity when these are the examples of Christian values people see. Not Churches running homeless projects or reaching out to help asylum seekers. Not taking on and supporting individuals who’ve had a hard time. The image is of a people who have a set of rules which they use as a ruler to judge others and don’t hold back when they find they don’t measure up.

I think decent, caring, mainstream Christians should be doing more to present the positive side of Christianity. Sending out a message that the Bulls’ are not typical or representative of true Christians.

Phil Woolas – Good Riddance

I don’t often take delight in others misfortune (at least I hope I don’t). But I am pleased to see Labour’s Phil Woolas brought to book. As Immigration minister he championed the Daily Mail cause against aslylum seekers, talking tough and nasty in order to please the bigots. I would be pleased if a Lib Dem were to replace him, but for me  it will be justice enough to see the man himself removed.

Having read round the internet on this subject, the case has brought some interesting responses, and by interesting I mean downright strange.

Firstly there is the Daily Mail, whose general readership Woolas liked to play to. You’d expect the usual foaming-at-the mouth commenters to be split as here was a Labour minister who championed their cause. Do they cheer that a Labour MP has been found out as a lying cheat, or complain that he “woz only sayin what we were all thinkin”. No contest, it was the former, with some going as far as to accuse Woolas of being part of some great conspiracy to drop immigration controls flood Britain with foreigners. Thus demonstrating how little influence reality has on the opinions of the typical anti-immigration nutter.

Then there are repeated snide comments about Lib Dem “lies”, and how “they all do it”, and “What’s new after 13 years of Labour spin”. I know the 140 characters of twitter don’t lend themselves to much nuance, but really? Are people over simplifying for the sake of making pithy comments, or do they really not get it?

This was not just someone who told a lie. This is not someone who just picked on things in isolation in order to make someone look bad. This is not someone who expressed an opinion that happened to turn out to be wrong. This is someone who made up stuff about someone else in order to make them look bad, and printed it.

Amongst the commentary there are also some odd ideas about what constitutes a lie, and what is morally equivalent to telling an out and out lie.

There is a difference between telling lies and presenting your case in the most positive  light you can.

There is a difference between telling lies and expressing mistaken beliefs. An untruth told in “good faith”, while morally wrong and a crime of incompetence, is not a lie.

There is a difference between telling lies and turning your back on a promise (for whatever reason). Being hopelessly unrealistic about what you can achieve is not dishonesty.

There is a difference between seeing things differently to you, and expressing that opinions, and telling lies. (Europhobes take note.)

There is a difference between telling lies about yourself to make yourself look good, and telling lies about another person in order to make them look bad. While I don’t approve of dishonesty in self promotion, it’s ludicrous to claim it is morally equivalent to defamation.

And no, I don’t believe politicians routinely tell lies about their opponents. They may highlight aspects of their behaviour in a negative way, they may express their opinions about what their opponents attitude amounts to. But they don’t generally just make stuff up.

If you’ve reached this point and are nodding away, then THANK YOU. There are still some sane, rational people out there and hope for the world.

If you thought this was all weasel words and pedantic nonsense, then please please please do grow up.

More on Phil Woolas:

• The rise and fall of Philip James Woolas – Paperback Rioter on the career of Phil Woolas
• A Tribute to Phil Woolas – Enemies of Reason
• Various Posts Nick Thornsby comprehensively documents the aftermath of the case

Spot the human?

I have proof that David Cameron is in league with…

OK, let’s look at the facts.

The image on the left was taken from a campaign poster. The image on the right, just a regular photograph. Spot the difference?

The one on the left, so smooth, almost plasticy. It’s an auton replica!!

David Cameron is in league with the autons and is using at least one of them to help him out with his campaigning. Must be.

Or it’s the result of over done make-up, or even a photoshop job.

Nah.

This. Has got. To Stop.

We seem to be becoming increasingly paranoid about photographers. People taking photographs are being frequently challenged by police. We have increasingly weird ideas of image rights and what permission is needed to take photographs in public spaces.

This is just the latest case.

It is often argued that people taking photographs of things some people don’t think are interesting should expect to have to justify themselves. This is a bad and small minded argument, however it doesn’t even apply here. He was photographing a church. An actual architectural landmark. Surely that point could be appreciated by even the most unimaginative of idiots?

Apparently not.

Austin Mitchell MP raised an early day motion about police intimidation of photographers. It hasn’t seemed to work so follwing this case he has submitted a new one.

Petitions about photography on the Number 10 website have been met with the response that photography in public places is not illegal. This misses the point- it needs to be made clear to the police that it’s not illegal and a greater degree of suspision is required before challenging people who photograph in public places. ACPO have in the past issued guidance on what the legal position of Police Officers challenging photographers is. The message appeared not to be getting through to the officers on the ground. Now worried by reports of misconduct in the press, ACPO are issuing their members with a warning. I hope it gets through to beat officers this time.

I’m wondering whether the mistrust of photographers is a problem with police culture, or one in society as a whole which is affecting some individual officers conduct. Either way- the paranoia must stop.

Being watchful and careful in public will make us safer as a nation. But this must be done calmly and intelligently. Fear, paranoia and mistrust do not make us safer.

Further reading:

LibDem Voice:

Tis the Season to be Wary – Lib Dem Voice

Warning: Do not take this picture – The Independent

Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws – The Independent

Is Photography the new Crime? – Andrew Reeves

News in Links

A couple of weeks back Professor David Nutt, an advisor on the subject of drugs, was in the media because some things he said contradicted the government’s position on the reclassification of cannabis.

Soon after Alan Johnson sacked Professor Nutt claiming that he had campaigned against government policy.

I thought there was something fishy about this, it didn’t seem to me like the statements were campaigning, even with the media leaping on them in the way they did. But with work and family I didn’t have time to look beyond the headlines. Turns out my feeling was right. Dr Evan Harris, (the Lib Dem MP for Oxford West) covers this in his blog, systematically taking apart the sacking and then Alan Johnson’s response to criticism.

I’m not sure whether the campaigning line, that Johnson is still sticking to is his own misunderstanding of the situation, or whether it is an interpretation that he keeps restating in the hope people believe it.

I think one of the funniest lines on this was spoken by Danielle Ward on the news quiz. The moral of the story being if you want people to go along with your ill-thought out policy, you need to pay them, or at least give them a peerage.

News in Links

A couple of weeks back Professor David Nutt, an advisor on the subject of drugs, was in the media because some things he said contradicted the government’s position on the reclassification of cannabis.

Soon after Alan Johnson sacked Professor Nutt claiming that he had campaigned against government policy.

I thought there was something fishy about this, it didn’t seem to me like the statements were campaigning, even with the media leaping on them in the way they did. But with work and family I didn’t have time to look beyond the headlines. Turns out my feeling was right. Dr Evan Harris, (the Lib Dem MP for Oxford West) covers this in his blog, systematically taking apart the sacking and then Alan Johnson’s response to criticism.

I’m not sure whether the campaigning line, that Johnson is still sticking to is his own misunderstanding of the situation, or whether it is an interpretation that he keeps restating in the hope people believe it.

I think one of the funniest lines on this was spoken by Danielle Ward on the news quiz. The moral of the story being if you want people to go along with your ill-thought out policy, you need to pay them, or at least give them a peerage.

Who’s platform?

I agree that it achieves nothing to censor Nick Griffin and the BNP. Banning his party from question time would have been counter productive, making them cause celebres. I don’t believe that anyone watching will get the idea that the BNP have any ideas worth voting for unless they already had racist views.

I keep hearing though that the way to defeat the BNP is to engage with them. Must I? I want to see fewer people voting BNP sure, but I don’t want to have to listen to Griffin’s bilge. Sorry that’s how I feel.

I’m not boycotting Question Time in disgust at the BBC, I just don’t want to hear that idiot speak.

It may seem undemocratic, or prejudiced, but freedom of speach does not mean people have to listen. Even if it would be productive for them to do so.

Who’s platform

I agree that it achieves nothing to censor Nick Griffin and the BNP. Banning his party from question time would have been counter productive, making them cause celebres. I don’t believe that anyone watching will get the idea that the BNP have any ideas worth voting for unless they already had racist views.

I keep hearing though that the way to defeat the BNP is to engage with them. Must I? I want to see fewer people voting BNP sure, but I don’t want to have to listen to Griffin’s bilge. Sorry that’s how I feel. I’m not boycotting Question Time in disgust at the BBC, I just don’t want to hear that idiot speak.

It may seem undemocratic, or prejudiced, but freedom of speach does not mean people have to listen.

Same old tories?

This is going to be one of those emotional political statements that I disapprove of myself, but I hope you can forgive me.

Listening to the headlines, I’m left with a feeling that the Tories haven’t changed. Telling people that the Conservatives are bad news may not be what many people want to hear, particularly those riled to the point of rage with Brown and looking for reasons to justify it. But it should be done.

The overwhelming impression I got from listening to the message of “tough choices” and “all of us in it together”, is that these weren’t tough choices. Was it an anti-tory reaction, or are they using the post credit-crunch recession and the effect on the country’s bank balance to do what they wanted to do anyway? I had the feeling that deep down they wanted to make cuts, and were scarcely suppressing the urge to rub their hands in glee at such an excuse.

Was the gamble that the electorate are so cheesed off with Labour that they’ll just accept the Tory line, without any polish or presentation. They won’t even be able to shout “liars” when they get what they voted for as its been given to them straight.

Edit: Well it appears my Lib Dem PPC Nader has a similar impression