I'm writing today about something which has occupied my mind for a couple of weeks now. As I write this I am watching a rather interesting BBC documentary on codebreakers at Bletchly Park in WW2 so this may not be the clearest post in the world (incidentally it's fascinating and I'd check it out on iPlayer if I were you).
The subject of this post is around the issue of when government legislates for a legal limit in some case. The problem being that in these cases, the limit is alwasy going to be arbitary. The most obvious examples are the age limits imposed upon sexual consent, and the ability to drive (the limit on alcohol and tobacco consumption is less arbitary as these are often based on the evidence of the effect these have on the physiology and neurology of teenagers). The problem with these kinds limits can be framed like this:
We know that we don't want people using supposed consent to defend themselves against the charge of sexually abusing children. We know that children are vulnerable, that they do not understand the implications of sexual contact, nor are they developmentally able to psychologically and physically deal with with sexual activity, so we want society to have a limit to the point at which we can say that below a certain age, there can be no such thing as sexual consent.
However, we also know that teenagers develop at different stages, so that, by the age of 16, many teenagers will certainly not be psychologically prepared to become sexually active, and there may well be 14 or 15 year olds who are mature enough to deal with the implications of having sex. Certainly it's absurd to suggest that all people, on the dawn of their 16th birthday are suddenly changed from immature children to mature young adults, all we know about how puberty progresses contradicts this.
So, we are left with the situation that we certainly want some limit so that the law can distinguish between an adult who can rationally consent and a child who cannot, but putting this limit in place necessarily does not apply to all teenagers at all times, and perhaps criminalises perfectly healthy relationships - some politicians even feel that these kinds of relationships should be prosecuted simply because it's the law.
Its obviously absurd to suggest that just because something is the law that it is necessarily ethical - or to put it better, to suggest that because there is a legal limit to something, that limit is an unassailable moral limit. There are numerous examples throughout history of unethical laws being enthusiastically enforced by governments using the defence of "well, my hands are tied, it's the law".
Obviously, we don't necessarily want teenagers to be having kids left right and centre, that is not going to help anyone, but the fact is that not all sexual contact under the age of 16 is going to be damaging. The law is there to protect the young from the potential maniupulations of older people but does nothing to talk about what I'm going to call here as "age-appropriate relationships" - that is to say relationships that happen within an age-specific peer group. Obviously there are problems with this definition in terms of limits as well, but if we go by the webcomic xkcd's formula of half-one's-age-plus-seven, then we can have a working definition of a reltionship, under the age of 16 which is less prone to the possible manipulation which we suspect from relationships involving teenagers and far older people.
So, you may well have cottoned on to the point I'm trying to make, that instead of just having a lower limit of age of consent, having an upper limit of how much older than a teenager someone can be before a suitable relationship can be considered by society might be a better setup. But of course, this limit will be just as arbitrary as the previous one, and doesn't take into account the possible differences in terms of maturity between people within the half-age-plus-seven bracket (which, if you work it out, has a natural lower limit at 14).
To move on to another exemplar, there is another legal limit, not based on age, which posesses different problems - the example of what constitutes "reasonable force" in cases of assault. No matter who you are in society, in theory at least, you have a right to defend yourself if you are attacked, if you use reasonable force. This means force enough to fend off your attacker without being "excessive" or "gratuitous" - however these defintions are obviously context dependant - what is defined as force reasonable to fend off an attacker is dependant on what the defender believes is necessary to remove the threat in the moment. However, when defenders feel that to remove the threat against them, a certain amount of force is needed, an amount of force that perhaps others would disagree with, then juries may vary wildly in their decisions on the same actions. The decision is bound to be a judgement call in some cases.
So the legal limit of "reasonable force" is in reality, a subjective limit - one in which many people are bound to have different opinions about. But the sexual consent limit is almost the opposite, it's an arbitrary absolute limit based upon a general average of people's rates of development. So the law has problems both ways when presenting limits to things - either you have an arbitrary absolute limit which leaves out the inevitable outliers of the bell curve, or you have a limit based on "common sense" which ultimately leaves itself very open to interpretation, and so will eventually be inconsistant in some way.
I'm not entirely sure there is any real way out of this dilemma, though I'd welcome suggestions, my instinct is to say that if we are to have arbitrary limits, then have some leeway either side of them, and if we are to have "judgement call" limits then we will have to have some rigorously outlined definitions do judge them by - not a perfect solution but the best that can be done as far as I can see.
Theoretical ponderings and hugs,
Gabe
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Goooooooooood Morning Merchiston!
The title here may be a little misleading right now, I should say that I haven't been broadcasting to military forces in the southside of Edinburgh, nor have I ever been Robin Williams, but I did get my first taste of being a radio presenter yesterday. As a final flourish of the radio portion of my broadcast module we had a news day - get stories in off the wires*, make them into broadcastable copy**, create packages*** and then put it all together into a news bulletin live as if it were being broadcast (sadly, or fortunatly depending on your point of view, Napier university doesn't have a licence to broadcast radio). In my great tradition of making things hard for myself, I volunteered to present this.
To be honest, the experience wasn't terrible, and I only made one major error (I forgot to turn my interviewee's mic on when I was asking him questions) and people said I did a good job, which was odd for me, since I have never really liked the way my voice sounds. Despite this adequate performance, I felt totally exhausted afterwards, it had been a long day anyway, but when you areading out the news as if it were live on air, and your teacher is sitting across from you, smiling ever so slightly, as well as having your elected editor next to you diving occasional direction, you begin to feel like you're running through traffic.
That was the practice run however, I am taking my first foray into actual real-life proper grown-up radio broadcasting on Wednesday, or perhaps next Wednesday, and will be reading the news out on Leith FM community radio. It kind of helps that the station is small, so things will seem relatively relaxed, but I am just hoping I don't fuck it up somehow.
Anywho, those are the major updates in my life right now, I hope you are all as enthralled as you so rightly should be.
Peace, love and understudies,
Gabe
*Wires: noun - an ingenius device for getting a list of news agency stories in a list online, thus cutting out the need for any journalistic ability whatsoever.
** Copy: noun - the brave and hopeful attempt at writing which journalists engage in before it gets handed to the editor, after which it becomes News.
*** Packages: noun - the clever manipulation of sounds or images in such a way as to make the journalist speaking look like they a) have done the implied legwork and b) know what they are talking about.
To be honest, the experience wasn't terrible, and I only made one major error (I forgot to turn my interviewee's mic on when I was asking him questions) and people said I did a good job, which was odd for me, since I have never really liked the way my voice sounds. Despite this adequate performance, I felt totally exhausted afterwards, it had been a long day anyway, but when you areading out the news as if it were live on air, and your teacher is sitting across from you, smiling ever so slightly, as well as having your elected editor next to you diving occasional direction, you begin to feel like you're running through traffic.
That was the practice run however, I am taking my first foray into actual real-life proper grown-up radio broadcasting on Wednesday, or perhaps next Wednesday, and will be reading the news out on Leith FM community radio. It kind of helps that the station is small, so things will seem relatively relaxed, but I am just hoping I don't fuck it up somehow.
Anywho, those are the major updates in my life right now, I hope you are all as enthralled as you so rightly should be.
Peace, love and understudies,
Gabe
*Wires: noun - an ingenius device for getting a list of news agency stories in a list online, thus cutting out the need for any journalistic ability whatsoever.
** Copy: noun - the brave and hopeful attempt at writing which journalists engage in before it gets handed to the editor, after which it becomes News.
*** Packages: noun - the clever manipulation of sounds or images in such a way as to make the journalist speaking look like they a) have done the implied legwork and b) know what they are talking about.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Smells Like Teen Regression
I am currently blogging, logged into my Google account, linked in with YouTube and Gmail, whilst simultaniously talking on MSN Messenger and on Twitter. I'm expecting a USB port to spontaniously appear on my head any moment.
Gumpy-old-man-impersonating over, I actually quite like all the connectivity we all seem to have these days, some people seem to think it's driving us all apart, but I fail to see how interacting through a computer screen, instead of over the phone or via snail mail makes any difference other than being much much faster and more versatile.
In other news, I am currently finding a new love for Nirvana, something I missed out on in my early teens. From about the age of 13-15 I was so vanilla I was mostly into classical music, U2 and Bob Marley. Not that I don't see musical merit in those things these days, but I wasn't very musically adventurous until I was about 16 when I got intoduced to Guns 'n' Roses, and then The Who and suddenly discovered that music could be exciting. Not that there aren't classical pieces you can rock out to, In the Hall of the Mountain King for example, is a total headbanger of a tune.
Also I made a very silly video-type-vlog thing with my good friend Pockets, one of those people who has become known only by his nickname, so much so that his real name doesn't seem right to address him by. Anyway, here is a video of myself and Pockets messing around with a very nice camera and commenting on comments (it's so meta!)
Oh and there is a bonus video in the description also involving me and a friend of mine from my course called Trystan, who is very cool and Welsh in an understated kind of way. Incidentally, Trystan has very kindly given me the opportunity to do some newsreading on the community radio station Leith FM, which I am approaching with equal amounts of excitement and crushing anxiety. I am sure it's going to be fine though, just its rather nerve-wracking, the prospect of reading out the news live on air. Must remember not to swear...
I have to say, I find filming silly things like this is enormous fun. It is very unlikely but if I could somehow wrangle my way into making a living out of this kind of thing then I would be indescribably happy.
I do hope people are enjoying my directionless ramblings here. I suppose only the people who do like them will be reading this bit, though so people who don't like it are... like, smelly and... sexually attracted to goats... and make poor financial decisions. Yeah, put that in your hippie pipes and smoke it.
Salutations and Chive dip,
Gabe
Gumpy-old-man-impersonating over, I actually quite like all the connectivity we all seem to have these days, some people seem to think it's driving us all apart, but I fail to see how interacting through a computer screen, instead of over the phone or via snail mail makes any difference other than being much much faster and more versatile.
In other news, I am currently finding a new love for Nirvana, something I missed out on in my early teens. From about the age of 13-15 I was so vanilla I was mostly into classical music, U2 and Bob Marley. Not that I don't see musical merit in those things these days, but I wasn't very musically adventurous until I was about 16 when I got intoduced to Guns 'n' Roses, and then The Who and suddenly discovered that music could be exciting. Not that there aren't classical pieces you can rock out to, In the Hall of the Mountain King for example, is a total headbanger of a tune.
Also I made a very silly video-type-vlog thing with my good friend Pockets, one of those people who has become known only by his nickname, so much so that his real name doesn't seem right to address him by. Anyway, here is a video of myself and Pockets messing around with a very nice camera and commenting on comments (it's so meta!)
Oh and there is a bonus video in the description also involving me and a friend of mine from my course called Trystan, who is very cool and Welsh in an understated kind of way. Incidentally, Trystan has very kindly given me the opportunity to do some newsreading on the community radio station Leith FM, which I am approaching with equal amounts of excitement and crushing anxiety. I am sure it's going to be fine though, just its rather nerve-wracking, the prospect of reading out the news live on air. Must remember not to swear...
I have to say, I find filming silly things like this is enormous fun. It is very unlikely but if I could somehow wrangle my way into making a living out of this kind of thing then I would be indescribably happy.
I do hope people are enjoying my directionless ramblings here. I suppose only the people who do like them will be reading this bit, though so people who don't like it are... like, smelly and... sexually attracted to goats... and make poor financial decisions. Yeah, put that in your hippie pipes and smoke it.
Salutations and Chive dip,
Gabe
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Journalism and Living With One's Parents
Hello brief mortals!
As you may have seen I have actually blogged again this year! I'm on a roll! A little update on my life - I got into the journalism course I wanted to at napier Uni in the lovely Edinburgh, which was nice. So far its been pretty hectic, we've been studying Broadcast, writing for news, global current affairs reporting, media law (for god's sake don't hack any phones!) and shorthand. The shorthand class is very tough and optional, but we have been told in no uncertain terms that some editors will never employ anyone who don't have at least 100 words per minute - so off to shorthand I went!
I feel that a major part of learning a new craft, skill or set of techniques is finding out what you don't want to do with it, as much as finding out what you do want to do with it. For example, having seen what conflict reporters in places like Palestine have to deal with, I have decided that I never ever want to do that for a living (a particularly grusome image from a documentary of the after effects of a suicide bombing are etched forever into my mind). Yesterday we went for a court visit to see what being a court reporter is like. We visited the High Court in the Royal Mile, and managed to get some pretty interesting hearings. The first one was a fairly short deferred sentence hearing for a sex offender, and the second was the final statements in an attempted murder trial. What amazed me most of all was the ability of the courts to make such interesting cases so mind-numbingly dull. I was literally almost falling asleep by the end. Court reporting, it seems, is not for me either.
I'm getting quite into the idea of documentary filmmaking though, I've always liked making films, and it would give me the opportunity to report of quirky things which most people wouldn't hear about; reporting from Mongolia's annual Naadam sports festival for example, or following the lives of scientists stationed in Antarctica, or making a film about the remanants of the British Stalin Society (it really exists!) and their worldview. I like the idea of making films about odd, eccentric, intetresting and oft-unreported corners of culture. I suppose what I'm heading towards here is basically what Michael Palin's been doing since the 80s. Damn, someone's always got to have done it before haven't they?
My journalistic interests are wider than that of course. Once again I reviewed comedy at the Edinburgh Fringe, and I enjoyed myself a great deal. I think I'd like to do it again next year, but I really should get out of the habit of working for no pay. Speaking of that, I just got a music reviewing gig for a website called Never Enough Notes, which is part of the VICE magazine network (basically: groovy, intependant, advertising-funded cultural reporting). As I imply, its unpaid, but I really do enjoy listening to and commenting on new music, so in this case at least, work is its own reward. They've asked me to contribute at least once a month, which I think I can reasonably do even if I do get a part-time job on the side to get some goddamned money in my pocket.
Speaking of being poor, my initial plan to try and find a flat to live in whilst studying fell through because I have nothing to my name, except a large collection of jackets, a nice bass guitar and two essentially useless computers. So I made the dreaded move to live back with my parents. In general its been ok, though obviously annoying because families are stupid. The most unanticipated annoyance for me is that my tiny room at my parents' place is too small for all my stuff, so I live surrounded by boxes, with barely any room to move. Fortunately I spend most of my days outside at uni or at friends' places so I'm not forced to spend time there, and I'm visiting my girlfriend in Dundee nearly every weekend, which is probably keeping me sane more than any other thing.
The worst thing about living with your parents I feel, is the fact that it proves backwards time travel is possible. I might be 22, I might be 32, I might be 42, it doesn't matter, as soon as I walk through that door, I am 15 again. Not only is it infuriating to be treated in a slightly patronising way after having just done a degree, but it is annoying because it makes me feel younger, less confident, less in-control when I'm in the house. I think a major part of growing up is realising that after a certain point, your parents aren't necessarily very good for you, or even people you would choose to associate with had you the choice, but merely people you share genetic material with and are obliged to spend time with. That's not to say I hate my parents, I don't, its just that I'm not really friends with them either.
Anyway, rant over - this is all in aid of getting me writing every day. Hopefully I can keep this up, if not this sentence is going to look preeeeeety silly.
Rage and vitriol,
Gabe
As you may have seen I have actually blogged again this year! I'm on a roll! A little update on my life - I got into the journalism course I wanted to at napier Uni in the lovely Edinburgh, which was nice. So far its been pretty hectic, we've been studying Broadcast, writing for news, global current affairs reporting, media law (for god's sake don't hack any phones!) and shorthand. The shorthand class is very tough and optional, but we have been told in no uncertain terms that some editors will never employ anyone who don't have at least 100 words per minute - so off to shorthand I went!
I feel that a major part of learning a new craft, skill or set of techniques is finding out what you don't want to do with it, as much as finding out what you do want to do with it. For example, having seen what conflict reporters in places like Palestine have to deal with, I have decided that I never ever want to do that for a living (a particularly grusome image from a documentary of the after effects of a suicide bombing are etched forever into my mind). Yesterday we went for a court visit to see what being a court reporter is like. We visited the High Court in the Royal Mile, and managed to get some pretty interesting hearings. The first one was a fairly short deferred sentence hearing for a sex offender, and the second was the final statements in an attempted murder trial. What amazed me most of all was the ability of the courts to make such interesting cases so mind-numbingly dull. I was literally almost falling asleep by the end. Court reporting, it seems, is not for me either.
I'm getting quite into the idea of documentary filmmaking though, I've always liked making films, and it would give me the opportunity to report of quirky things which most people wouldn't hear about; reporting from Mongolia's annual Naadam sports festival for example, or following the lives of scientists stationed in Antarctica, or making a film about the remanants of the British Stalin Society (it really exists!) and their worldview. I like the idea of making films about odd, eccentric, intetresting and oft-unreported corners of culture. I suppose what I'm heading towards here is basically what Michael Palin's been doing since the 80s. Damn, someone's always got to have done it before haven't they?
My journalistic interests are wider than that of course. Once again I reviewed comedy at the Edinburgh Fringe, and I enjoyed myself a great deal. I think I'd like to do it again next year, but I really should get out of the habit of working for no pay. Speaking of that, I just got a music reviewing gig for a website called Never Enough Notes, which is part of the VICE magazine network (basically: groovy, intependant, advertising-funded cultural reporting). As I imply, its unpaid, but I really do enjoy listening to and commenting on new music, so in this case at least, work is its own reward. They've asked me to contribute at least once a month, which I think I can reasonably do even if I do get a part-time job on the side to get some goddamned money in my pocket.
Speaking of being poor, my initial plan to try and find a flat to live in whilst studying fell through because I have nothing to my name, except a large collection of jackets, a nice bass guitar and two essentially useless computers. So I made the dreaded move to live back with my parents. In general its been ok, though obviously annoying because families are stupid. The most unanticipated annoyance for me is that my tiny room at my parents' place is too small for all my stuff, so I live surrounded by boxes, with barely any room to move. Fortunately I spend most of my days outside at uni or at friends' places so I'm not forced to spend time there, and I'm visiting my girlfriend in Dundee nearly every weekend, which is probably keeping me sane more than any other thing.
The worst thing about living with your parents I feel, is the fact that it proves backwards time travel is possible. I might be 22, I might be 32, I might be 42, it doesn't matter, as soon as I walk through that door, I am 15 again. Not only is it infuriating to be treated in a slightly patronising way after having just done a degree, but it is annoying because it makes me feel younger, less confident, less in-control when I'm in the house. I think a major part of growing up is realising that after a certain point, your parents aren't necessarily very good for you, or even people you would choose to associate with had you the choice, but merely people you share genetic material with and are obliged to spend time with. That's not to say I hate my parents, I don't, its just that I'm not really friends with them either.
Anyway, rant over - this is all in aid of getting me writing every day. Hopefully I can keep this up, if not this sentence is going to look preeeeeety silly.
Rage and vitriol,
Gabe
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Labour, the SNP and Scotland's Voters
Diverging, as I do, from previous themes, I thought I might comment on the political landscape of Scotland right now as I see it. I should mention here that I am neither a supporter for the Scottish Labour party, nor particularly for the SNP, my best fit in terms of policies would probably be the Scottish Socialist Party.
It would seem, certainly it does to Scottish Labour, that the SNP victory in May's elections was a massive surprise, even for the nationalists. Certainly, nobody expected them to defeat the system which was set up so that they would never get a majority. However, an SNP victory, or at least large Labour losses, should have been anticipated from the get-go. Looking at the statistics, the Labour Party vote in Scottish elctions has dropped year after year. In 1999, the Scottish Labour Party won a staggering, though not unexpected, 908 392 contituency votes and 786 818 regional votes, gaining it a comfortable 56 seats over the SNP's 35 (from 672 757 consituency votes and 638 644 regional). However, in the ensuing elections Labour's vote has dropped nearly every time:
2003 Election
- Labour dropped to 659 879 constituency and 561 379 regional.
- SNP dropped to 449 476 consituency and 399 659 regional, losing just over 200 000 from their regional vote and their constituency vote.
2007 Election
- Labour dropped to 648 374 constituency but regional vote went up to 595 415.
- SNP rose to 664 227 constituency and 633 401 regional, returning more than 200 000 to their regional and constituency votes.
2011 Election
- Labour dropped to 630 461 constituency and regional votes down to a record low of 523 559.
- SNP rose to 902 915 constituency and 876 421 regional, adding almost 250 000 votes to their constituency vote, and over 300 000 votes to their regional delivering the highest regional vote count for any party in any Scottish Parliament election.
Apart from their regional votes in 2007, Labour has never made a net gain in pure votes since the first parliament. This kind of consistent hemorrhaging of votes can only be indicitive of a party which is either failing to get their supporters interested enough to come to the ballot box, or a party which is losing out to rivals, and I have a hunch it is more of the latter and less of the former. The fact is, nontheless, that SNP in this most recent election has managed to get voters out in numbers which had not been seen since the honeymoon days of the first Scottish Elections. In the light of what seems to have been diminishing voter turnout in 2003 and 2007, the SNP's feat seems all the more impressive. Though, it must be said, the collapse of the Lib-Dems and the drift of the left-wing vote from the SSP and the Greens may have more to do with the impressive numbers, rather than an increased interest in voting in 2011.
The stock response that Scottish Labour's fate has not been helped by a parade of ineffectual and uninspiring leaders since Donald Dewar's death may have some part to play here, but it must be remembered that even though there had been the tumultuous move from the capable, but financially clumsy Henry McLeish to the younger, but slightly more dull Jack McConnell prior to the 2003 election, Labour still came out on top. Certainly Labour's hopes since 2007 have been severely hampered by the lack of inspirational leadership to rival the political weight of Alex Salmond, it seems that there is a deeper problem here for Scottish Labour.
What I believe has happened, admittedly without any solid evidence to back me up here, is that the left-wing instincts of Scottish voters have been gradually picking up on the fact that since 1994 the Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party. Call me idealist, but I think that a large percentage of Scottish voters would, if perhaps reluctantly, describe themselves as socialists and are distinctly unimpressed by the kind of Blairite, managerial, centre-right politics which we have seen the Scottish Labour party delve into, not least the famously reactionary (as well as completely unworkable) policy of mandatory sentencing for anyone found carrying a knife.
As well as this, the SNP's policy of emphasising the need for bringing greater attention to Scottish issues and not taking the Scottish parliament to be the kiddie's anex of Westminister as the attitude of Labour's last election campaign suggested means that Scots are getting more used to a political discourse which treats them as seperate from the rest of the UK electorate, developing our own distinct political culture, priorities and most recently, a radically different government from the one in London. The Scots aren't so worried about stopping the Tories as we used to be, certainly having a Tory government in Westminister is stirring old fears, and will probably have a role to play in the independance referrendum, but in Scottish Elections at least, they aren't a threat, and so the old tribal barriers break down. We don't have to vote Labour anymore, there's another party, which is better at doing what Labour are supposed to have done!
There seems to me to be a major disconnect between the instincts of the Scottish electorate and the instincts of the Blairites running the Scottish Labour party, one towards social democracy, and the other towards the centre-right agenda prevelant in Westminister. And from this disconnect a far more left-leaning SNP can take the stage as the party of best fit for the Scottish electorate as it currently stands. My advice to the Scottish Labour party (if they get that desperate, which doesn't seem so unlikely right now) would be to return to their roots. The term Old Labour is very unfashionable right now, but it's still Clement Atlee's government which gave us the NHS and all the other social democratic benefits of the welfare state. If the Labour Party wants to steal votes back from the SNP, they need to realise that the reason the Scottish people voted for them in such large numbers for well over half a century is that the Scots thought the Labour party stood for ordinary working people, for resisting the excesses of capitalism and for representing minority groups. As it turns out, in the end the Labour party, or at least its leadership, only really stood for itself.
As I think should be obvious, the final section here is a mixture of analysis and speculation, which should not be taken as if I were presenting them as fact, if people disagree with me feel free to say so in the comments (which I may moderate if people are being dicks).
Peace, yo.
It would seem, certainly it does to Scottish Labour, that the SNP victory in May's elections was a massive surprise, even for the nationalists. Certainly, nobody expected them to defeat the system which was set up so that they would never get a majority. However, an SNP victory, or at least large Labour losses, should have been anticipated from the get-go. Looking at the statistics, the Labour Party vote in Scottish elctions has dropped year after year. In 1999, the Scottish Labour Party won a staggering, though not unexpected, 908 392 contituency votes and 786 818 regional votes, gaining it a comfortable 56 seats over the SNP's 35 (from 672 757 consituency votes and 638 644 regional). However, in the ensuing elections Labour's vote has dropped nearly every time:
2003 Election
- Labour dropped to 659 879 constituency and 561 379 regional.
- SNP dropped to 449 476 consituency and 399 659 regional, losing just over 200 000 from their regional vote and their constituency vote.
2007 Election
- Labour dropped to 648 374 constituency but regional vote went up to 595 415.
- SNP rose to 664 227 constituency and 633 401 regional, returning more than 200 000 to their regional and constituency votes.
2011 Election
- Labour dropped to 630 461 constituency and regional votes down to a record low of 523 559.
- SNP rose to 902 915 constituency and 876 421 regional, adding almost 250 000 votes to their constituency vote, and over 300 000 votes to their regional delivering the highest regional vote count for any party in any Scottish Parliament election.
Apart from their regional votes in 2007, Labour has never made a net gain in pure votes since the first parliament. This kind of consistent hemorrhaging of votes can only be indicitive of a party which is either failing to get their supporters interested enough to come to the ballot box, or a party which is losing out to rivals, and I have a hunch it is more of the latter and less of the former. The fact is, nontheless, that SNP in this most recent election has managed to get voters out in numbers which had not been seen since the honeymoon days of the first Scottish Elections. In the light of what seems to have been diminishing voter turnout in 2003 and 2007, the SNP's feat seems all the more impressive. Though, it must be said, the collapse of the Lib-Dems and the drift of the left-wing vote from the SSP and the Greens may have more to do with the impressive numbers, rather than an increased interest in voting in 2011.
The stock response that Scottish Labour's fate has not been helped by a parade of ineffectual and uninspiring leaders since Donald Dewar's death may have some part to play here, but it must be remembered that even though there had been the tumultuous move from the capable, but financially clumsy Henry McLeish to the younger, but slightly more dull Jack McConnell prior to the 2003 election, Labour still came out on top. Certainly Labour's hopes since 2007 have been severely hampered by the lack of inspirational leadership to rival the political weight of Alex Salmond, it seems that there is a deeper problem here for Scottish Labour.
What I believe has happened, admittedly without any solid evidence to back me up here, is that the left-wing instincts of Scottish voters have been gradually picking up on the fact that since 1994 the Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party. Call me idealist, but I think that a large percentage of Scottish voters would, if perhaps reluctantly, describe themselves as socialists and are distinctly unimpressed by the kind of Blairite, managerial, centre-right politics which we have seen the Scottish Labour party delve into, not least the famously reactionary (as well as completely unworkable) policy of mandatory sentencing for anyone found carrying a knife.
As well as this, the SNP's policy of emphasising the need for bringing greater attention to Scottish issues and not taking the Scottish parliament to be the kiddie's anex of Westminister as the attitude of Labour's last election campaign suggested means that Scots are getting more used to a political discourse which treats them as seperate from the rest of the UK electorate, developing our own distinct political culture, priorities and most recently, a radically different government from the one in London. The Scots aren't so worried about stopping the Tories as we used to be, certainly having a Tory government in Westminister is stirring old fears, and will probably have a role to play in the independance referrendum, but in Scottish Elections at least, they aren't a threat, and so the old tribal barriers break down. We don't have to vote Labour anymore, there's another party, which is better at doing what Labour are supposed to have done!
There seems to me to be a major disconnect between the instincts of the Scottish electorate and the instincts of the Blairites running the Scottish Labour party, one towards social democracy, and the other towards the centre-right agenda prevelant in Westminister. And from this disconnect a far more left-leaning SNP can take the stage as the party of best fit for the Scottish electorate as it currently stands. My advice to the Scottish Labour party (if they get that desperate, which doesn't seem so unlikely right now) would be to return to their roots. The term Old Labour is very unfashionable right now, but it's still Clement Atlee's government which gave us the NHS and all the other social democratic benefits of the welfare state. If the Labour Party wants to steal votes back from the SNP, they need to realise that the reason the Scottish people voted for them in such large numbers for well over half a century is that the Scots thought the Labour party stood for ordinary working people, for resisting the excesses of capitalism and for representing minority groups. As it turns out, in the end the Labour party, or at least its leadership, only really stood for itself.
As I think should be obvious, the final section here is a mixture of analysis and speculation, which should not be taken as if I were presenting them as fact, if people disagree with me feel free to say so in the comments (which I may moderate if people are being dicks).
Peace, yo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)