Polling day

Actually, I voted last week, because I applied for a postal vote ages ago in case I ended up somewhere else come election day. But I have just been to have a nose around our polling station anyway, to see whether it’s busy, and I’m pleased to say that it is. It was empty when the beloved visited early this morning, but almost everyone on our estate is either a parent, a drug dealer or a lunatic, and they all have good reasons to be elsewhere at 8am.

I spent quite a long time thinking about who to vote for; more than I have done at any other election. 1997 was easy: it was the first year I could vote, the sun was shining and we were facing a bright new dawn. In 2001 and 2005 I think I voted Green, in the hope that a high Green count in my (safe Labour) seat would persuade the big parties to introduce greener policies. I sort of think that was misguided, now: I don’t believe the big parties care or are guided by how many votes the small parties get, as long as they don’t start to become an electoral threat.

Anyway, the Green candidate in my constituency seems to be madly xenophobic: he thinks we should begin immediate negotiations for withdrawal from the EU, and that the UK should stage a military intervention if Iran develop nuclear weapons. Nutter.

I dabbled for a bit with voting Lib Dem, too, but when it came down to it I think some of their policies are a bit wishy-washy and undeliverable, and the main reason I wanted to give them my vote – their refusal to commit to replacing Trident – turned out to be another damp squib, since their alternative doesn’t sound any better.

So I went Labour again. My candidate is Tessa Jowell, and I don’t mind her too much, even though she lives in Highgate. I can’t blame her for that. I’d live in Highgate, if I could. And after looking into the main parties’ policies a bit more closely I realised that the Labour party, for all the things they’ve done in the last three terms which I bitterly disagreed with, still represent my views better than anyone else does.

Anyway, if you haven’t already, go out and vote. Anyone you like, as long as it’s not the Tories*. I could summarise the social and political and economic reasons why I don’t want them in power, but when it comes right down to it, it’s quite simple: (a) they’re the Tories, and (b) have you seen David Cameron?

The Call Me Dave problem was summarised more neatly than I could do it by a teenager who I walked past as I came back from the polling station. “That Cameron”, he was saying to his friend, “I just don’t like him. He’s too white.” Exactly, I thought.

*I am assuming that BNP voters don’t really read, so won’t see this.

Two things about homoeopathy

1. I am sad that we’ve lost the middle “o”. It’s universally spelled “homeopathy” now, by everyone but me. I don’t know what drives the urge to discard unpronounced letters in certain words (encyclopaedia, foetus) and not others (psychopath, night), but whenever we do it we lose a link to the origin of the word and its meaning, and I think it’s a shame.

2. I don’t use homoeopathic remedies myself, and from the limited amount I’ve read on the subject I’m not convinced they have a benefit other than as a placebo. However, I’m not angry enough about it to want to protest about it by staging a mass overdose outside branches of Boots.

I can understand the desire to ask the NHS not to spend money on something you don’t believe has any scientific basis, but what can it matter if Boots choose to sell it and people choose to buy it? You can buy herbal remedies and sleeping aids and albums by Muse and all sorts of things which I don’t personally believe deliver any benefits, but if you want them, I’ve no objection to your being allowed to obtain them.

I feel about it a bit as I do about religion. I happen not to believe in a god, but I’ve no desire to start telling other people they shouldn’t either. Some people value their faith above cold hard scientific fact, and I think we should probably let them make that choice. Where belief specifically promotes something dangerous, there’s a reason to challenge it, but I don’t extend that to taking out adverts on the sides of buses, or organising variety shows celebrating atheism. There’s something ungenerous and mealy-mouthed about it, and although I am proud to be a rationalist and an unbeliever, I would like us as humans to be adult enough to make room in the world for people who feel differently, and confident enough in our own beliefs that we don’t need to feel threatened by other people’s.

(Also, arnica totally works on bruises.)

The BNP on Newsnight

By the time you read this, you’ll probably know whether the protesters outside (and now inside) the BBC succeeded in their aim of preventing BNP leader Nick Griffin from appearing on Question Time. As I write I’m watching what looks like a full-scale riot happening outside Television Centre, although it’s hard to see whether it’s at all violent or whether there’s just a lot of people in a smallish space.

Now, I’m theoretically all for throwing eggs at neo-nazis, but the more I’ve thought about this, the less I’m convinced that the protesters have a good point to make. I wish heartily that we hadn’t elected two BNP MEPs at the last European elections, but given that we did, I don’t think there’s any case to be made for denying them the same platform that we accord to other political parties.

I may personally despise the BNP and everything they stand for. I may hope that you and many millions of other people feel the same way. But I don’t get to decide who gets to have their voice heard based on whether or not I like what they have to say. The only reasonable, equitable way of dealing with opinions we don’t agree with is to have the debate out in the open and to win the argument. If we try to silence the voices of those whom we think are in the wrong, we add to their appeal by making them into martyrs, as well as taking a dangerous step towards the kind of segregation that we profess to despise in them.

If Nick Griffin speaks on Question Time tonight, I have no doubt that he’ll sound foolish and ignorant, because that’s what he is*. I’d like us as a society to be brave enough to trust the viewers (who are also us as a society) to make a choice based on what they hear and see, not on what we decide should be kept hidden from them.

That said, if I saw him and I had an egg, I might still throw it.

* Cheeringly, he knows this too. An email sent out to supporters earlier today apologises in advance for his poor performance.