Reading this
mornings Sunday newspaper, (The Observer) it's the first opportunity for
the hacks to 'vent' and one is struck by the damage that polarisation in politics and much else inflicts on society.
The word truth seems to mean different things to different people and yet each opposing opinion claims its own position to have acquired the elixir of truth and reading the columnists and experts one is struck by the surety each has of their position.
The word truth seems to mean different things to different people and yet each opposing opinion claims its own position to have acquired the elixir of truth and reading the columnists and experts one is struck by the surety each has of their position.
Hope in the uplands, or pain and damnation,
seems the order of the day and each piece is eloquently crafted, the
words chosen carefully to accentuate a 'specific position' regardless of
any other viewpoint.
This "all or nothing" which so reflects our Parliamentary debating chamber is a point scoring game rather than an attempt to find solutions. Solutions might just mean you accept the other person is right on this particular matter and that the end result is worth ditching your political ideology whilst working towards an end which the "people" as a whole benefit. If there was a book entitled "common sense" then perhaps we could agree on so much more and stop this pitiful behaviour, like feral cats in a bag, fighting because, 'it's what's expected of us'.
Each line, each sentence is so pitched to elevate the argument that the other person is wrong and not just wrong but crazy to believe what they do. And yet we all come upon life and make of life what we can from so many different directions. There is no one truth only an embroidery of experiences and aspirations which make us all sublimely individual. How can a person write as if he/she represented us all in anything other than the most arcane issues of which we most likely haven't yet had the opportunity to consider. This need to collectivise us all, to homogenise us all and written by someone who has little understanding of himself/herself, let alone others.
The stick to beat the "Leavers" turns out to be immigration and the supposition that we are all racist. They turn to using those words, which in our passive, sensitive, minority obsessed world close down further communication. Racist, misogynist, sexist, are but a few which the controllers of free speech use to cast blight on any alternative opinion.
And so people who voted "Leave" did so largely because they feared immigration and their fear was based on being racist. The argument that the politicians of all political persuasion had failed to consider the implication of inviting millions of people into our country without a thought to housing, schooling, integration and the effect on society of strong religious beliefs rooted in societies thousands of miles away with cultures far far different. A gamble was taken and is still being taken that the ordinary man and woman in the street will some how work it all out in a good natured way and that provision for such a dissimilar group need not be planned, is typical of the bumbling approach our political elite deal with genuine problems. Give it time and it will go away.
Immigration was not the most important thing on my or many other people's agenda.
My worry was that this Federalisation agenda, which is needed to make the EU work from a financial point of view, was not something I wanted to see.
I am anti Globalisation for the same reason, this incessant need for collectivisation, the creation of a sameness in a mould suitable for financial and market simplicity but in which we have seen the benefits fall to a few, leaving the majority on a social and emotional scrap heap.
This "all or nothing" which so reflects our Parliamentary debating chamber is a point scoring game rather than an attempt to find solutions. Solutions might just mean you accept the other person is right on this particular matter and that the end result is worth ditching your political ideology whilst working towards an end which the "people" as a whole benefit. If there was a book entitled "common sense" then perhaps we could agree on so much more and stop this pitiful behaviour, like feral cats in a bag, fighting because, 'it's what's expected of us'.
Each line, each sentence is so pitched to elevate the argument that the other person is wrong and not just wrong but crazy to believe what they do. And yet we all come upon life and make of life what we can from so many different directions. There is no one truth only an embroidery of experiences and aspirations which make us all sublimely individual. How can a person write as if he/she represented us all in anything other than the most arcane issues of which we most likely haven't yet had the opportunity to consider. This need to collectivise us all, to homogenise us all and written by someone who has little understanding of himself/herself, let alone others.
The stick to beat the "Leavers" turns out to be immigration and the supposition that we are all racist. They turn to using those words, which in our passive, sensitive, minority obsessed world close down further communication. Racist, misogynist, sexist, are but a few which the controllers of free speech use to cast blight on any alternative opinion.
And so people who voted "Leave" did so largely because they feared immigration and their fear was based on being racist. The argument that the politicians of all political persuasion had failed to consider the implication of inviting millions of people into our country without a thought to housing, schooling, integration and the effect on society of strong religious beliefs rooted in societies thousands of miles away with cultures far far different. A gamble was taken and is still being taken that the ordinary man and woman in the street will some how work it all out in a good natured way and that provision for such a dissimilar group need not be planned, is typical of the bumbling approach our political elite deal with genuine problems. Give it time and it will go away.
Immigration was not the most important thing on my or many other people's agenda.
My worry was that this Federalisation agenda, which is needed to make the EU work from a financial point of view, was not something I wanted to see.
I am anti Globalisation for the same reason, this incessant need for collectivisation, the creation of a sameness in a mould suitable for financial and market simplicity but in which we have seen the benefits fall to a few, leaving the majority on a social and emotional scrap heap.
What we now need is not analysis of 'why' but of the 'how and where we go from here.
The
country needs to project itself that it's open for business. It's
entrepreneurs and sales people should be out selling and finding out
what the world markets need. We should begin again to be proactive not
sitting in the middle of a cartel but closely attuned to the other 6
billion plus people who are not European.
No comments:
Post a Comment