Comment For Free

I know I said I wouldn’t comment on sited like The Grauniad’s Cif anymore, But… I’m not well. So, for this, I wrote:

[Warning for those that feel they need it: this post contains a quotation which uses the ‘n***er’ word.]

The thing is – as Lenny Bruce pointed out so long ago – that insults only hurt if the insultee wants them to. As Bruce pointed out if we kept using these words until they became worn out clichés ‘'til nigger didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.’ This has always struck me as a much more positive, pro-active approach to take, rather than the sharp intake of breath and cultural cringe we see so amply demonstrated in this current spat.

Instead, though, it seems we, as a society, have taken the completely opposite course to Bruce’s suggestion, with the result that the number of ‘insulting’ words seems to have grown exponentially. The result is that each utterance is greeted with more and more – seemingly mostly faux – outrage, especially those who see themselves as spokespeople for those ‘oppressed by hate language’, or those who have a vested interest in keeping such causes simmering.

But, of course, merely ignoring doesn’t give quite the glow of satisfaction, or burnish the liberal credentials quite so brightly, as rushing to the barricades, does it?

*

Oh, and here.

Right. Here we go.

1. No political parties and therefore no party whips.
2. Individual candidates in each constituency nominated, and seconded in ratio to the number of constituents, with a reasonable deposit paid to discourage fringe, loonies, nutters etc as much as possible, but still leave it as open as possible.
3. Each candidate is allowed to produce – at their own expense – a single leaflet outlining their stance, policy ideas and so forth, which can be delivered – once only – to each address in the constituency.
4. No TV, radio advertising, no helicopters, no ‘battle busses’.
5. Ballot paper features a ‘None of the Above’ option. Any candidate whose vote count is below the number of ‘None of the Above’ votes cast cannot stand again. If no candidate gets more votes than the ‘None of the Above’ amount, then the election is re-run in that constituency with a new list of candidates.
6. Once elected to the House of Commons there is a free secret ballot of all MPs to select a Prime Minister who stays PM until unseated by a Commons vote of no confidence or a general election – whichever is the sooner. He/she/it gets to choose a cabinet – all of which have to be approved by a majority in the house. They can only be removed by a vote of no confidence, general election or their own resignation.
7. Every vote in the house is – of course – a free vote.
8. Any MP can propose legislation, although the PM and cabinet members have priority. Legislation however, will only be carried forward if a majority of MPs vote in favour of that proposal.
9. Loose associations etc are allowed, but any MP discovered attempting to influence the vote of another MP using undue pressure should immediately be removed, barred from the house forever, and a by-election called.
10. Once a person has served in the Commons for a period - say survived five general elections – they are automatically moved to the upper House. The PM is only allowed two terms, as in the US system, before being promoted to the Upper House. The main function of the Upper House is to check each piece of legislation, say every 5 – 10 years to see if it is working as intended. If not, it is either repealed, or sent back for revision.

The only thing I haven’t worked out is how to put a stop to the current main problem in government, where a complete amateur who often knows little or nothing – the politician – is put – at least nominally – in charge of a massive department of government. Maybe we ought to have someone who knows what they are talking about and doing actually in charge of the department and the politician as a sort of representative of the interests of that department in the same way as they are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents.

*

Oh, and this too:

The vociferousness of those who claim to see a line of continuity between a mere smack inevitably leading to out and out assaults on the - assumed - innocence of childhood does seem more akin to an act of solipsism more concerned with beating the rush to claim the moral high ground, rather than a piece of well-considered analysis of the nature of childhood and the parental relationship towards it.

Likewise, the claim that ‘I’ve never had the occasion to smack my child - ever’ prompts the nagging thought that - perhaps, after all – these are those very parents whose offspring made the lives of all who encountered them such a memorable misery as they ran riot ‘only expressing themselves’ through airports and restaurants, or encountered them ‘working off their excess energy’ through the supermarket, the ‘high-spirited’ little angels who with a tenacious insistence involve everyone in their immediate locality, somewhat unwillingly, into their interfamilial dynamics, as - all the while - their dotingly self-satisfied middle-class parents beam in the smug satisfaction of a job well done.