Blog

The title of the post is from one of Robert Burn’s best known poems, ‘To a Mouse’. In the aftermath of the Scottish Election debacle, Radio Scotland, Radio Clyde and other local stations had all kinds of informed pundits, public commentators, academics as political apologists, apologies for politicians but few apologies from politicians, all giving there take on what went wrong. With a court case threatened about one seat where a majority of 48 is a figure only 1/20th of the number of spoilt votes, the scale of the scandal is put into some perspective. And yes, whatever went so badly wrong – was someone’s responsibility, and needs sorted. The number of spoilt votes now exceeds the combined turnout for three constituencies!

But my day was made by one of the presiding officers, responding to email and phone-in suggestions that if people filled the voting forms in wrong it was because they were stupid. Not trying to hide her serious no’ pleasedness, she put aside the protocols of public discourse and suggested such people got right up her nose, made her blood boil and should be neither seen nor heard, and she’d like to have a (private and probably unrepeatable) word with them. After which she resumed her public persona and said. ‘People aren’t stupid. It was a new system. They simply made a mistake. And that can happen to anyone.’

Later, when the debate between stupid or mistake was taken out onto the streets, we got the definitive answer from someone whose career path, probably to our considerable loss, didn’t take him into politics. Asked whether he felt stupid, or had just made a mistake, one of the public declared with considered solemnity and self deference;

‘Naw. Ah juist made a mistake. (Momentary pause…..) It wis a stupid mistake, but!’

I love the wisdom, and forbearance of the Scottish public – and the creative use of grammar by putting a conjunction at the end of a sentence for emphasis. Guid rhetorical strategy, is it no’ juist? And I admire the ability of Scottish folk to spot patronising questions coming at them like a Henman passing shot, and returning them with the ego-deflating sharpness of an Andy Murray cross-court volley. Unfortunately as the answer above was delivered, the limitations of radio became obvious – it was unable to capture the millimetre or two movement of one eyelid. Guid on ye, pal!

But a country whose folk are hungry for change, with a history of political engagement and enlightened inventiveness, conscious of the opportunities that our own Parliament makes possible, – deserves better than the standards of political discourse and leadership so far shown. And for the next five years of Scottish Government to be reduced to horse-trading about who and which party’s interests can be preserved, is not only embarrassing, it is to reduce the expressed political will of the Scottish people to personal and party political ambition.

I think the message of the Scottish voters is neither fudged nor surprising. The message is – on track records so far, no one party is to be trusted with our future – maybe a hung Parliament with all its frustrations, is still an effective corrective to party interest, personal ambition, and narrow non negotiable agendas.

Going back to the man in the street quoted earlier, one of Burns’ most potent political poems, celebrates him and his answer. And the third verse of ‘A man’s a man for a’ that’ should give the Holyrood power mongers serious food for thought – and who knows even repentance!

Ye see yon birkie, ca’d a lord,
Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that;
Tho’ hundreds worship at his word,
He’s but a coof for a’ that:
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
His ribband, star, an’ a’ that:
The man o’ independent mind
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.

  Years ago Shirley Williams (remember her?) wrote Politics is for People, a carefully reasoned, socially compassionate and morally intelligient plea for political processes and institutions that served rather than exploited, that gave due weight to social justice, that aimed at increasing and sharing more equally, the opportunities that arise from a country’s wealth and work. Some would say she was a failed politician – failed to get elected on two occasions, went into academia in Harvard, and is now Baroness Williams of Crosby, retiring from the House of Lords as leader of the Lib Dems in 2004. But that book was visionary in a reasoned and morally cogent way.

Politics is for people. Indeed. It seems a long way away – and I don’t just mean a long time ago – over twenty five years. It seems a long way away since politicians could write such a book and find that the public bought and read it as if its contents were genuinely meant. Contemporary political realities are more often junk food standard than organically sound.

The degree of self interest, party self-preservation, power at any price maneouverings, patronising spin, wheeling and dealing with large corporations and global companies,  – oh and the odd military adventure based on balsam wood moral foundations to spread the gospel of democarcy western style in places where democracy has no cultural or religious roots. Politics is for people would now sound like spin, another polystyrene promise, used once and thrown away as disposable.

So what keeps us Christians from becoming cynical non participants in the political processes intended to make governments accountable? Why do we as people, bother about politics which seem to be less about people like us, and more about the politician, the party, the bottom line, whatever terminology best describes the dominant public perception of self-interested, not to be trusted politicians?

Why will I vote in our elections on May 3?

1. Because I believe in our capacity to do things right, to make fair decisions, to at least want a fairer society, even if it doesn’t always work out that way no matter how hard we argue and try.
2. Because I don’t believe every politician is in it for themselves, as if good people who want to make a difference were somehow absent from the hustings, and allergic to public life.
3. Because though a lot of political life is manipulative, unprincipled, power-mongering and at times exploitative – there are people in there who care, who want the voice of ordinary folk to be heard and their life desires given a chance. I’m with them – if I can spot them!
4. Because I don’t think I can claim to be a follower of Jesus, and ignore the possibility that my ballot paper, along with those of others, can make a difference to who become the decision makers.
5. Because I will pray for guidance, and I’ll use the commonsense and ethical passion God has given in casting my vote.
6. Because what I’m looking for is the candidate nearest to the values that underpin human flourishing and social compassion – and if they are good politicians – good as effective operator and good as principled person, then they have my vote, my support, my prayers.

And the question of which party they belong to will be largely secondary. The party manifesto is less important to me than the personal track record of getting stuck in on behalf of the people – listening to our voice, speaking our case, caring about local outcomes, and displaying unashamed bias towards those pushed to the edges.

And yes all the above is idealistic, even generalised, and lacking political sophistication – which is ok with me, cos I’m dead unsophisticated so I am.