Politicians

I wouldn't want to be a politician in todays world. There is little that is black & white. The issues are invariably incredibly complex. When I was in my 20's I stood as a Labour candidate in local elections in Ascot - Obviously hope over experience! I have been a liflong liberal socialist though. 

There are two questions that always occur to me;-

• What drives anyone to seek election?
• What does the electorate have the right to expect from Politicians?

I'm not cynical enough to believe that politicians are always driven by money & power. I do believe that many want to change the status quo & improve life for people. They genuinely believe in public service & feel that they have something to contribute. It is true though that quite a lot of politicians don't behave as we expect. Worse, quite a lot of ministers fall below the standards demanded. This goes from "disorderly conduct", through independent complaints, to breaching the Code of Standards & at the top treason or sedition. It's all about "acts" or "omissions" prejudicing the state or political system. 

Currently Nadim Zahawi has been sacked because of his tax situation. The worst thing about this to my mind is that he didn't think that his tax situation was relevant to holding high public office. He lied about it when it became public. He did not resign, he had to be sacked following an enquiry. Finally he did not feel his conduct required an apology. It all seems unbelievably duplicitous & arrogant. I expect more from people in high office.

Politicians are just as likely as you or I to make mistakes. That isn't necessarily sackable so long as they are truthful. We should accept their human fallibility. I doubt any of us could do their job without making mistakes, however good their advisors are. They should be held accountable for their actions & lack of action though, especially those in high office. 

It's bad enough that they are trained to avoid answering difficult questions. To prevaricate & stick to a pre determined script which often bears no relevance to the question asked. It's a skill they learn. Personally I think it shows a contempt for the people they supposedly serve.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/28/never-give-a-straight-answer-zoe-williams-learns-to-talk-like-a-politician

Being a good politician must be stressful & difficult. All I want from politicians is that they tell the truth unless that would cause serious harm & that they comply with reasonable standards of behaviour. There should be evidence of a moral compass. 

Unfortunately I simply don't think much of that applies to this UK government.

  

Disagreement & Conflict

Apparently there are five main causes of conflict;-

• Information conflicts - people have different or insufficient information, or disagree over what is relevant.

• Values conflicts - people have perceived or actual incompatible belief systems. A person or group tries to impose its values on others or claims exclusive right to a set of values or a way forward. 

• Interest conflicts -  competition over perceived or actual incompatible needs.

• Relationship conflicts -  caused by misperceptions, strong negative emotions, or poor communication. One person may distrust the other and believe that the other person’s actions are motivated by malice or an intent to harm the other.

• Structural conflicts - caused by oppressive behaviors exerted on others.

In order to resolve conflict there needs to be a respectful environment. Values may be non-negotiable, but they can & should be be discussed. People need to be able to live peacefully and coherently alongside each other. A real barrier to resolution & accommodation is belief that in order to satisfy ones own needs, those of the opponent must be sacrificed. Resolution can occur if each person has the opportunity to talk through the issues and respond to the other person’s concerns. If there is no dialogue this isn't possible. There needs to be "give & take" on both sides. One persons view & values should not dominate.

I have been a Magistrate & a member of the Independent Monitoring Board of a prison, so have a diverse experience of the Law & Justice. I have also been a Mediator, trained by the Quakers, which gave me experience of how difficult it can be to resolve disagreements & conflicts. 

In all that experience I have often been surprised at human behaviour & the outcomes of that behaviour. According to a Harvard study men are generally more aggressive & combative than women. Men are, on average, more outwardly aggressive than women. Women can be as angry, but are better able to control immediate impulsive responses to anger.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/12/science-of-anger-gender-age-personality

There has always been conflict. I doubt that will change in what is left of my life. Conflict & anger is damaging to everyone involved. It has physical & emotional repercussions. There are ways to resolve conflict;-

• Mediation - parties communicate with a neutral third party who makes a non-binding recommendation 
• Arbitration - parties commit to conform to the third party recommendation 
• Negotiation - parties engage in face-to-face talk. 

The difficulty is that everyone involved in the disagreement or conflict has to genuinely want to resolve the issue & reach a conclusion acceptable to all. No solution is possible without a genuine acceptance of differing points of view. 

Sadly, all too often one party is unable to "give an inch". In extremis wars result. 

 

 

Birthdays - 78 Years

I've always felt ambivalent about my birthday. I'm not sure what there is to celebrate about surviving another year. Also January isn't a particularly good time of year to have a celebration. At least the sky is blue & it isn't raining or bitterly cold today. I'm actually having a birthday weekend, because I had a lovely morning yesterday at an exhibition at the Ashmolean with my daughter & lunch afterwards. I'll have a birthday tea with my small family this afternoon. Very low key, but just right.

However, as I get older I'm more complacent about ageing. It doesn't seem to mean much after 78 years & there are benefits. The highs & lows of life seem to even out & experience shows you that you can & do deal with most things. There isn't much choice. You do have to accept that you are walking a path that is getting shorter.

The really good thing is that 78 years of experience means that I know a lot more about life & how to deal with it. I also think that I have learned to accept more & try not to be judgemental. There is a certain freedom in understanding that change is inevitable & normal & you can't control everything in life. 

I'm trying to accept people for what they are, warts & all. I've accepted that I can't & shouldn't try to change other people, only myself. That doesn't mean I accept poor behaviour, but it does mean I really appreciate my good friends & family. 

I do believe that life should be a path towards being the best person you can be. Perfection is not possible. We are all a "work in progress". We all have faults, but we all have choice & the intelligence to choose wisely. All we can hope for is to improve gradually. 

No one knows when their life will end. I think what I'm aiming for now is to "do no harm". Especially regarding the wonderful world we have been given to live in.

"Spare" - Harry's Memoir

This outpouring was actually written by JR Moehringer, a prolific ghostwriter of celebrity memoirs. Harry got $25m from Penguin for the rights to "Spare". It's the culmination of a series of sadly ill advised, but eye wateringly money generating, publicity moves by the Sussexes, following on from their abdication from Royal duties. The Oprah Winfrey interview in 2021, for which Meghan was allegedly paid between $7-9 million, was the embarrassing beginning. There followed a $100m deal with Netflix for a string of programmes, including their recent six-part docu-series, plus a $30m deal with Spotify for a podcast hosted by Meghan.

There has been a drip drip cumulative effect of the revelations - cleverly timed so they do not clash. It's very savvy PR to maximise income & exposure, keeping  the Sussexes at the top of the media & news for as long as possible. I'm sure Meghan's celebrity status meant that she had plenty of contacts to call on to master mind this whole sad fiasco. 

Before he left London, the Duke of Sussex was worth somewhere between $25 and $40 million, according to Celebrity net worth. But now, he and his wife have a combined net worth of a reported $60 million. So it's difficult not to see this public washing of "dirty linen" as simply a money making exercise.

It is hard to comprehend the logic & rationale behind all this given everything Harry has said about Press & Media privacy and intrusion in his mothers life & his. Or is the intrusion only acceptable if he is getting paid a lot of money? 

What else do the Sussexes, particularly Harry, have to say apart from the fact that they are angry with the royal family? Don't all families have arguments? Aren't we all p..... off with members of our immediate family at times. I can remember being really angry with my parents. I was an only child so wasn't a "spare", but trust me that has it's own problems. 

However hurt, upset or angry I was I would not have dreamt of doing what Harry has done to his family. Not that anyone would have been particularly interested because I had no status or celebrity. I cannot begin to imagine what the four members of Harry's immediate family are feeling. What he has done is deeply hurtful, unforgivable, childish, self absorbed & needy.

We all have s... in our lives & we have to learn from it & deal with it. For Harry to think that what he has done leaves much room for reconcilliation or "getting his brother & father back" seems frankly deluded.  Both Sussexes seem intent on dwelling on the past.

I'm also sceptical about the Sussexes launching themselves as global philanthropists. The Archewell Foundation includes the couple's "nonprofit" charitable foundation, as well as business divisions focusing on media production, Archewell Audio and Archewell Productions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archewell  This followed from their Sussex Royal "brand" which ended because they were no longer Royal. I think they really have to decide what they are - A List celebrities or Ex Royals. If they are serious about Philanthropy they need to be credible to the millions of people who don't have their money or position, but do live with poverty, hunger, deprivation of basic needs, discrimination & war.

All of this is really sad. Harry & Meghan have alienated an awful lot of people by what they have done. I don't know if the stories of his PTSD & the controversial EMDR treatment is true. I wouldn't wish mental ill health on anyone, but it does seem to be a possible explanation for his otherwise surprising behaviour. 

PS

I've now watched most of the Bradby interview. The thing that stands out is how really good he is at the whole Media thing. He has obviously been schooled by someone who knows a lot about presentation & PR. The other thing is that he simply scatter guns accusations without a shred of evidence to back them up. It's all his "perception" of what occurred & we all know how unreliable memory is. Especially if it's someone who has suffered trauma from an early age. What he doesn't seem to comprehend is that he isn't doing himself any favours by revealing all. He acknowledges all the things that make him an unreliable witness - his mothers death (PTSD?), being a member of a uniquely dysfunctional Royal family, drinking to excess, taking class A drugs, fighting in a war (PTSD?), needing psychiatric help.....None of it makes him very balanced or a reliable source. But that is what he wants us to believe he is.

He has also led a very privileged & entitled life which bears little or no resemblance to that of most people. It seems to have made him quite self absorbed & gives him unrealistic expectations about people's behaviour. It's beyond belief that he really thinks that what he has done can lead to reconciliation. It's all very unedifying & sad.

I would like to have seen him be challenged by Bradby. I imagine that the Press & media will now come up with as much evidence as possible to counteract the accusations. So the Royals may well come out of this far better than Harry. I think he has "shot himself in the foot".