I’ve said what I have to say about Gordon Brown’s “private” comments about Gillian, the Labour voter he branded “a bigoted woman”. I want to look now at the wider issues that have arisen as a result of those comments.
It’s true, the woman did mention immigration but mentioning it and asking perfectly reasonable questions about the effect she believes it has on her local community does not make her a bigot. The whole argument about immigration and asylum seekers has become largely polarised and the result is that people who DON’T KNOW the answers, are scared to ask the questions for fear of being branded “racist” or “bigoted”.
If they’re scared to ask the questions, how do we hope to dispel the many myths surrounding these issues?
As anyone who’s read this blog knows I’ve recently been involved in a very high profile campaign to save my constituents, a 32 year old Malawian asylum seeker and her 10 year old daughter from deportation. I’ve written about it a fair bit and of course it’s attracted the inevitable criticism from people telling me to “do what we pay you to do and that’s to help your constituents” clearly meaning the ones that aren’t asylum seekers. The most abusive emails are always anonymous of course because I think people know when their views are unpalatable.
I’m pleased to say the overwhelming majority of people who’ve contacted me have done so to say the opposite and those who haven’t, have asked questions they are perfectly entitled to ask.
However the episode yesterday reminded me of a guy I met during the Glasgow North East by election. I chapped on his door and I explained who I was and why I was there. He seemed very nice but didn’t have much time for politicians. (NB I rarely meet anyone with a bad experience of a politician who doesn’t then decide we’re “all the same”!).
When I asked him why, he said he felt we never did anything for “ordinary” people and we really weren’t interested. Obviously I know this not to be true but I hear it so much that I really wanted to understand where he was getting this impression. He then said that he felt politicians were only interested in “minority” groups and if you weren’t black, an asylum seeker, homosexual or a list of other “categories” then we didn’t want to know.
It’s not the first time I’ve heard that from a constituent but for some reason he really struck a chord with me. Possibly because he said all the right things in terms of believing that everyone including the minority groups he’d mentioned, had a right to representation. Perhaps because he reassured me he’d rather die than vote BNP. And it may have had something to do with the fact that he wasn’t attacking me but seemed genuinely sad that he had lost his faith in the political process.
However they manage to get that impression, some people genuinely do believe that the political process is not about them because they don’t happen to be in a “minority” group. And it’s something that we, as politicians, have to look at. We need to figure out how we continue to do the work we’re doing but without alienating anyone. We need to do it for them and for people in those “minority” groups who then, unfairly, become a target for resentment.
Although I say he struck a chord with me, it didn’t happen right away. It would have been easy for me to dismiss him as a bigot and that’s what I was thinking initially. I retorted in my usual way by “reassuring” him that should his government want to execute him for no particular reason, or should he be abused in the street because of who he fell in love with, I would be very happy to fight for him too.
He took my point and thus the mellowing of this particular politician.
And I explained rather more gently this time that the vast majority of constituents for whom I am fighting are not asylum seekers and I wouldn’t have a clue about their sexuality. But you don’t hear about these cases because on the whole, their issues are about someone’s incompetence rather than institutionalised injustice. That neither requires nor attracts publicity whereas the latter often does.
And whilst I fight equally hard for all of my constituents, if there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s injustice. I don’t imagine anybody likes it but I really cannot bear to hear about people suffering unnecessarily. And the idea that some people for whatever reason, feel unable to do anything about it for themselves, drives me to distraction.
In doing all of this however, I need to be mindful of the need to connect with and do my best to represent everyone out there, including people like the voter in Glasgow North East who may have different views to me but who, let’s face it, could be your brother or your son. And just because he doesn’t see life the way you or I might see it, doesn’t mean he won’t one day. And if he never does? Well I still believe in equality regardless of someone's sexual orientation, race or inability to see things the way I do!
Everyone deserves to be represented, everyone deserves support when they’ve been treated wrongly. Sometimes people become so worn down with their own lives that they simply don’t have room to care about anyone else. But when people feel that their problems are being listened to, they’re far more likely to care about everyone else’s problems.
So I will carry on fighting against injustice, I will stand up for equality and for compassion and I will be there for anyone who needs my help – even those who have no interest in any of what I’ve just said. Even those who might be classed as “bigots”. After all, if I refuse to fight for the rights of my constituents who have different views to me, does that not make me a bigot too? I think if you check the dictionary you’ll find I’m right.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
SNP Court Battle not over yet!
So we lost the court battle today to get an interdict forcing the BBC to either include the SNP in its final Election Debate or to only show it outwith Scotland. We lost it on a number of counts including the "wholesale disruption" it would cause if the court were to agree to the SNP's request.
It may be over in terms of tomorrow's debate but it's not over in terms of the legal battle and the judicial review moves on.
No court ruling however, can take away from the fact that it is COMPLETELY UNJUST for the SNP to be excluded. After all, these debates are what seem to be having the biggest influence on voting intentions at this election. That was plain to see when suddenly the Lib Dems shot up in popularity simply because Nick Clegg impressed folk at the first debate.
From our point of view, we're competing with the Lib Dems in Scotland. They were not a huge threat to our vote in Scotland until that debate. And now, not because they've suddenly come up with great policies but because their leader came across well in a debate, they are a threat to our vote. People who might have voted SNP will be considering the Lib Dems more seriously.
And how can we have an equal chance? By participating in one of the debates. That's all we were asking for but the BBC denied us that chance. As Nicola said earlier we'll now move on to another court, the court of the people of Scotland. But if we thought we had a fight on our hands before, it just got a whole lot more difficult - free publicity to millions of voters for Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems vs ordinary foot soldiers in the SNP knocking on doors. Ach, it's the way we've always worked, we'll just have to get on with it.
It may be over in terms of tomorrow's debate but it's not over in terms of the legal battle and the judicial review moves on.
No court ruling however, can take away from the fact that it is COMPLETELY UNJUST for the SNP to be excluded. After all, these debates are what seem to be having the biggest influence on voting intentions at this election. That was plain to see when suddenly the Lib Dems shot up in popularity simply because Nick Clegg impressed folk at the first debate.
From our point of view, we're competing with the Lib Dems in Scotland. They were not a huge threat to our vote in Scotland until that debate. And now, not because they've suddenly come up with great policies but because their leader came across well in a debate, they are a threat to our vote. People who might have voted SNP will be considering the Lib Dems more seriously.
And how can we have an equal chance? By participating in one of the debates. That's all we were asking for but the BBC denied us that chance. As Nicola said earlier we'll now move on to another court, the court of the people of Scotland. But if we thought we had a fight on our hands before, it just got a whole lot more difficult - free publicity to millions of voters for Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems vs ordinary foot soldiers in the SNP knocking on doors. Ach, it's the way we've always worked, we'll just have to get on with it.
Gillian
I felt really sorry for Gillian today. Who's Gillian? Don't you follow the election coverage? Gillian is the woman Gordon Brown was caught calling a bigot when he left her, not realising his mike was still on. I felt really sorry for her because you could see she was upset and to my knowledge she didn't say anything bigoted.
If she had done however, there would have been nothing wrong with what he said. This idea that politicians have to be nice to everyone even when that person is being offensive (as happens now and again) is daft, it makes us fake and people don't want us to be fake they want us to be honest. For example, seeing as I've never diddled my expenses, if someone accuses me of doing so (as they have done, total strangers who have never even heard of me) I don't waste time doing the "typical politician" thing, I don't smile through gritted teeth, I stick up for myself in the way anybody would if they were accused of theft!
Just as folk don't want us to be fake, neither do they want us to be perfect super humans. So they'll forgive us the odd faux pas (or fox's paw as my Granny Purdie called it). And that's why today's incident between Gillian and Gordon Brown will blow over - if the press allow it to. Everyone says things they don't really mean when they're under pressure. He was probably feeling awkward and a bit stressed in a situation that he's not naturally comfortable in and was expressing that by doing what most folk do and blaming someone else. It wasn't very nice but we all do and say not very nice things occasionally.
I think I'm ultra sensitive to other people but trust me, I am not blame free and like most folk out there, I've expressed my annoyance with people behind their back. I bet you have too. And I bet, like me, if you thought they were going to hear what you said, you wouldn't DREAM of saying it.
I can understand all the fuss about the Labour candidate whose twitter page CONTINUALLY demonstrated his contempt for ordinary people but this is different. Gordon Brown may well have contempt for ordinary people but what happened today is not necessarily an indication of that.
If you want a reason not to vote for him try the Iraq war, nuclear weapons, the "British jobs for British workers" comment but don't judge his whole suitability as PM on one stupid throwaway comment. I hope Gillian't not too upset by the media frenzy of today.
If she had done however, there would have been nothing wrong with what he said. This idea that politicians have to be nice to everyone even when that person is being offensive (as happens now and again) is daft, it makes us fake and people don't want us to be fake they want us to be honest. For example, seeing as I've never diddled my expenses, if someone accuses me of doing so (as they have done, total strangers who have never even heard of me) I don't waste time doing the "typical politician" thing, I don't smile through gritted teeth, I stick up for myself in the way anybody would if they were accused of theft!
Just as folk don't want us to be fake, neither do they want us to be perfect super humans. So they'll forgive us the odd faux pas (or fox's paw as my Granny Purdie called it). And that's why today's incident between Gillian and Gordon Brown will blow over - if the press allow it to. Everyone says things they don't really mean when they're under pressure. He was probably feeling awkward and a bit stressed in a situation that he's not naturally comfortable in and was expressing that by doing what most folk do and blaming someone else. It wasn't very nice but we all do and say not very nice things occasionally.
I think I'm ultra sensitive to other people but trust me, I am not blame free and like most folk out there, I've expressed my annoyance with people behind their back. I bet you have too. And I bet, like me, if you thought they were going to hear what you said, you wouldn't DREAM of saying it.
I can understand all the fuss about the Labour candidate whose twitter page CONTINUALLY demonstrated his contempt for ordinary people but this is different. Gordon Brown may well have contempt for ordinary people but what happened today is not necessarily an indication of that.
If you want a reason not to vote for him try the Iraq war, nuclear weapons, the "British jobs for British workers" comment but don't judge his whole suitability as PM on one stupid throwaway comment. I hope Gillian't not too upset by the media frenzy of today.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Thank you
Thanks to everyone who donated to the SNP legal fund appeal. Within 31 hours we raised the £50,000 required to take our case for fair representation from the BBC to the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Nicola Sturgeon and Bruce Crawford are doing that this morning and we will await the outcome. Well done to them for such a bold move and thank you to everyone who donated - I know many people who are NOT party members who went online and made a donation because they feel SCOTLAND is being ignored in all of this, not just the SNP. I also read on Cllr Alison Thewliss' Facebook that an elderly lady popped into John Mason's campaign HQ to donate £10 towards it. Brilliant stuff and let's hope the court ruling goes in our favour today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
