Couch Debating

The merits of TV debating…

Just as the general election campaigns kick off across the nations of the UK, the first TV debate including all of the “main” parties standing. “Main” is perhaps a contentious point considering that some of these parties hold a few seats each- a list for your leisure…
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/mps.htm

Nevertheless OFCOM, in its wisdom, has independently decided that this is in the interests of the country and, considering all of the latest opinion polls, perhaps this is right.

The BBC has a good part of its website dedicated to each of these parties’ manifestos so have a little look if that is interesting- perhaps you may learn more than each leader shouting over each other.
There will be lots of issues raised, principally the economy, debt and growth and immigration up as the hot topics. From cutting taxes to hospital car park charges, this debate gives us the first look at how each party is shaping up!

Whether this debate is an introduction to politics or whether you’re on the ball RE each party’s manifesto then tonight should be interesting. Personally, I’d take this with a pinch of salt and think about what happens, whilst remembering that it is only the beginning, not nearly the end of the campaigning!

Intro over, I’m going to get seriously flippant. See if you can spot who I think won’t do well….
I know that some people will be flagging after the first half of this debate, so I have a solution.
A suggested recipe for those expecting more boredom- the leaders’ debate drinking game. You have a few minutes to prepare…

1) Choose a party and use them as a basis. (Perhaps the one that you may vote for in May).

2) Wander along to the nearest shop and purchase your tipple.

3) Drink. As responsibly or as irresponsibly as you like. I don’t care.

Each time one of the following happens, have a drink and see you the other side…

-Your chosen party leader gets a round of applause (5 fingers to another person of your choice and shout “……………… knows best!” as they drink)

-A rival leader makes a point you agree with (2 fingers and mutter that they are a scallywag under your breath)

-You leader admits a mistake then tries to wriggle out of it (a full pint and tell your boss about this game tomorrow)

-If you cannot follow the issue and suspect it’s because they are lying (2 fingers)

-NHS is mentioned (2 fingers)

-Nigel Farage answers without saying either ‘immigration’ or ‘EU’ etc (10 pints of the purest and strongest Vodka- I doubt it will happen)

-Ed Miliband looks lost (3 fingers and pretend you have lost your Wensleydale as well…)

-Ed Miliband says he’s ‘tough’ (1/2 drink and do 10 press ups)

-David Cameron says “I agree with Nick” (2 fingers and reminisce about things you said in 2010)

-Nick Clegg makes a pledge that you suspect he will not keep (2 fingers and admit a filthy lie from your past)

-Nick Clegg apologises (3 fingers and text a friend with an apology)

-Nicola Sturgeon tells people what is best for Scotland (reach for the whiskey and belt out Flower of Scotland)

-Leanne Wood enchants you with her accent into agreeing on an issue that you previously didn’t agree with (3 fingers and try to pronounce Cymru)

-Leanne Wood makes an excellent point about the NHS or refers to Welsh healthcare (drink as much as possible and book a hospital bed for a stomach pump…)

-Natalie Bennett says something extremely sensible but then fails to explain it coherently (3 fingers and plan a wild weekend which will never happen in a million years)

-You find yourself wondering what is going on with Natalie Bennett’s accent (reach for a fosters and see if that helps)

-Nigel Farage makes a thinly veiled racist comment (3 fingers and shout about how things were better in the good old days)

-Nigel Farage gives a plain man’s answer which doesn’t make any sense (don’t bother drinking, we don’t want A and E clogging up)

-Nigel Farage says something that you agree with (take a piece of clothing off)

Finally, enjoy the second half and then sober up before voting, to make sure it’s informed.

If you’d like to comment beneath with your views on the first half then drop a line. Keep it clean, keep it constructive, no abuse!

Who is doing well?

Who has surprised you?

Has tonight opened up a new party to you, that you previously overlooked?

Are you drunk?

“We must protect journalists’ rights to be offensive”

Is it right that deeply polemic views are deliberately and freely provoked without censure, because they are ‘free game’? Are we not better to practice tolerance not mistrust, and unity not social division? The above quote was heard in a radio interview tonight, which triggered some thoughts.

Freedom of speech is one of the greatest qualities that we have as a democratically-founded society in Western Europe, but what is socially acceptable to say is also. Just because this particular incident in Paris has ended in an abhorrent massacre, it does not mean that many millions are not offended by such deliberately provocative publications- if we have free speech, do we necessarily HAVE to exercise it? When does social responsibility take over? If someone went to a party and chose- as would be their right- to spout profanities and challenge the host’s most intimate views in such an offensive manner, they would be asked to leave. Forget the triviality in this case, the principle remains sound. With fatal consequences you don’t have to be reminded.

Through the centuries, the outbreak of war has rested with regularity upon religious differences, therefore is being so openly offensive wise? Regardless of the right to publish information freely and regardless of the potential outcry resulting from it, the content WAS and IS perceived to be extremely offensive. Extremism is the worst manifestation of religion but, to the detriment of all religious groups, it exists. Deliberately fanning the flames neither helps create understanding nor betters ties between groups which are ideologically and religiously unstable. Rightly or wrongly this is a fact, even if journalists believe in their right to publish any given content.

Satire offers a challenge to society and questions the values of each aspect of it, often in a ruthless manner. Great. But where does this stop? Aggravation for aggravation’s sake on such thorny issues drifts away from the cutting wit and question-raising nature of the humour, to ill-advised insults at best and borderline racism at worst. Enhancing lazy prejudices against any group of people just because their extreme faction commits a terrible atrocity could be avoided by reflecting on the consequences. Modern society has become a precarious convergence of often vastly different cultural groups, with the overwhelming majority coexisting and flourishing. This should be heralded as a triumph of Western European society, celebrating the richness of culture that could be attained from weaving different groups. However, the actions of inflammatory and influential groups seriously threaten the relative harmony that exists. This in no way offers explanation or advocation of events in Paris, but is does beg the question that if today’s extreme groups react as they continue to, should there be pause for thought before releasing material?

The French system of secularisation in exclusive, not inclusive. This is to say that it is not tolerated in publicly-held offices, from the display of a discreet cross around a persons neck, to wearing a headscarf. In a state which has been quick to champion the principles of free speech, the innermost values of certain societal groups are rejected by the state. They are not, however, protected from the uncensored abuse which comes their way- falling under the freedom of speech. Freedom of expression is as much of a pillar of democracy as freedom of speech- is there enough protection for religious groups. There seems, in this case, to be hypocrisy over different freedoms.

Inevitably there will be increased social tensions around the globe resulting from this, and hatred will spew from intolerant heartlands. The victims of Paris number much more than 12- they enter the thousands of innocent civilians from both sides who will feel under intense scrutiny, particularly the global religious population in whatever form their beliefs take.

In all of this we come to the heart of the point- tolerance. It seems that these types of incident fuel mistrust between tense social groups and minority groups bare the brunt of it. Periodically, we see shifts to the political right after terrorist attacks by the population at large- not a political wing that celebrates unity and tolerance between diverse groups. Le Front National, an increasingly influential nationalist party in France, may see gains from this, even more than the third that they polled in the recent European elections. The divisive nature of a free press leaves the realms of a tolerant society well behind into one which- inadvertently or not- nurtures social tension and mistrust within modern Western European societies.

The supreme irony of a liberal left-wing press, one which can publish whatever it likes, is that it creates the type of friction that generates votes for the extreme right.

The crux of it, in this instance, is that if you publish pictures of Mohammed, people get pissed off. With that in mind, why do it?

This is not debating freedom vs regulation of the press. Journalists carry out essential and heroic work in a field that forms a great bastion of democracy. In challenging the system in which we live they preserve the very best assets and aid in eliminating the evil elements. It is about creating stability and understanding in society between different social groups. If the price of harmony and tolerance in a peace-seeking world is a bout of social common sense and to self-monitor potentially explosive issues, I’ll send my bank details to whoever wants them…