Those Who Can, Do. Those Who Can’t, Teach.

Every so often a story catches my eye. So it was the case here. Whilst browsing the various BBC headlines for the first time in about a week, I came across this story. I was taken by it, it is such a simple concept, yet one which remains largely unexplored.

The group of A Level students have taken it upon themselves to petition the PM to create a GCSE option in politics, a subject not available until A Level. I have written before on how young people should be before they get involved in any form of politics. I failed to reach a suitable judgement. There are many problems to the idea of creating a new option at GCSE, especially one relating to politics.

I didn’t study politics at A Level, with hindsight perhaps I should have (although if I had done all the A Levels I wanted to, I would have wound up with about 8). I know many people in my school (granted it was not a representative sample of the population as a whole) who would have loved doing politics instead of the compulsory language, or in place of either Art or DT.

Would a GCSE in politics encourage more people to take an interest in politics? I know I would like to think so, but there is a nagging feeling I have about it. Could it not have the adverse effect? Could it not put people off from a young age? There is the potential, but if the option is just that, optional, surely you would only have people who actually want to study it? At least more than German. I think the option could be a interesting one to have, if only to get more young people interested in political issues. Encouraging them to engage with various issues relating to politics perhaps is a good idea.

The trouble is, how many people would do it? If politics is not something which interests you, making it just another subject, on a par with German or French, or any other compulsory subject that young people dislike might be a bad thing. By the time they reach A Levels, any interest has been sown, and, as more mature individuals, are able to choose their options much more freely, and easily.

So I have my reservations about this idea, but I do admire the students for running with it, and wish them all the best. If you do want to sign the petition, it is available here.

Just one more quick thing. Whilst looking through the Downing Street website I was surprised by sheer number of petitions, which obviously mean something to someone, but, in reality will not get that far.

Democracy Rules?

So the post mortem is underway in the Labour party. Following the worst results in local elections for forty years, the result in London is looking increasingly like Boris is going to come up trumps. I think these elections reflect the first public critique of Gordon Brown more than they reflect the merits of either the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidates in most areas. Whilst Brown has suffered at the hands of the media for various problems (the non-election last autumn and the recent 10p tax row are the two biggest), Cameron has, in all reality, failed to impress much more. An article in one of the Guardian supplements (left littered on our kitchen table) showed how the editor of the Evening Standard in London was encouraging people to not vote for Ken, which, he insisted is not the same as encouraging people to vote for Boris. Few remain convinced, this race has long been a two horse one, and whilst Paddick continues to talk the talk (I was impressed, to some extent, with him on QT last week) it really matters little.

Is this the problem then? Are the Conservatives and Lib Dems winning because of a backlash against Labour? I would certainly suggest so. Having had Brown now for roughly eight months, the relationship between him and the public has initially waned, and then broken down. He is not distrusted. More he is a figure of pity or of mockery. His indecisiveness has been seized upon by the ruthless media and impressions of him are getting worse. The 10p tax row did nothing to help this image (although I agree with the sentiment expressed on last weeks Have I Got News For You. Brown was very clearly in the middle of a rock and a hard place. He was damned for the initial problem, and criticised as weak following his backtracking), but the damage was quickly done. This came at just the wrong time for him and pretty much every other Labour candidate across the country.

An oft expressed sporting analogy is that one team did not win a match, but the other lost it. This notion can be applied to some extent here (this is not to say that the Tories or Lib Dems are completely incompetant, quite the contrary, they have done well to seize the initiative and run with it). The trouble is using the big picture of national politics to judge the regional level. Obviously the various candidates in the various regions have policies relevant to that area. But the big picture undoubtedly plays some part. Without, I feel, offering anything really substantial in terms of policy the Tories and the Lib Dems are capitalising well upon the failings of Labour, and this is reflected in the results.

I wish to leave British affairs, enough will be said on them (including numerous posts today on BULS), and instead look briefly at the other election that is rumbling on. In Zimbabwe the failure of either big party to gain the requisite 50% has meant that a second round of elections will take place. Which if you are Morgan Tsvangirai is bad news. The five week delay in annoucing the results has raised many eyebrows across the world, and the news that another round of elections will deepen fears that Mugabe will worm his way into power once more. Claims that there has been widespread intimidation and threatening actions undertaken by Mugabe’s militia are, whilst unproven, likely to founded in some degree of truth. The plight of Zimbabwe is one which is felt across the world I feel. Most people are sympathetic to the people of the country so ravaged by internal strife.

So it is I am trying to put this in perspective. I have heard the grumblings of many Labourites and non Labourites alike regarding Boris’ ability to run London in the build up to 2012. I am thankful. Despite his failings (of which he undoubtedly has some, but who doesn’t), the issues in Zimbabwe indicate that things could be a lot, lot, lot worse.

Damming the River…

I am reliably informed by the BBC that today is the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood ” speech. Obviously I was aware of the speech, and the fallout from it, but, like many others I’m guessing, would not have been able to tell you when it was made. Incidently, the name given to the speech is something of a misnomer, as nowhere in the speech did Powell ever say “rivers of blood”, but merely alluded to a passage from Virgil’s Aeneid. But that’s neither here nor there.

As a Black Country boy, I feel almost happy that Powell put Wolverhampton on the map, although I wish it was in better circumstances. I remember the first time I heard the name of Powell. We were in a history lesson and had been asked to do projects on something that interested us. A classmate chose Powell, but it didn’t really register with me the significance of the man.

Obviously he has aroused a huge amount of controversy, both at the time, and since. I am amazed by the general feelings of support that still float around the place. Just a quick scan through the hits that Google provides indicates to me that the thoughts of Powell still resonate with many people. So was Powell really speaking for the people? Unfortunately I think that he was. At least in the 1960s. I’m not so sure that the views are as prevalent any more. That is not to say they no longer exist, far from it, the small but vocal support for the BNP serves to prove this.

The whole affair though serves to raise an interesting question from a political point of view. Should governments act on behalf of the majority which elected them (generally), even if the issues they are acting upon are morally and ethically flawed? I ask this in light of the “Commonwealth Immigrations Act” which was brought in around the same time as Powell was making his name in politics. The population, generally, responded positivey to the act, although it was, at least according to The Spectator, “one of the most immoral pieces of legislation to have emerged from any British Parliament”. Is this indicative of the government appeasing the voters against the tide of common sense? Or was it a necessary step to avoid unrestricted access to British infrastructure, something which, if remaining unchecked, could have collapsed Britain?

Finally to conclude this brief piece I think it is interesting to note how quickly reputations can be broken. Powell was a hugely intelligent, well-educated, respected man. That he has been portrayed as some idiotic racialist following the speech is, to me at least, wrong. Now I disagree with most of what he said in that speech, but I will not pretend that he was stupid. Which perhaps makes the whole affair worse.

For the moment, the jury remains out on Powell, some see him as an “enormous folk hero, a tribune of Britain’s silent white majority” (Racist Nation? BBC History, March), others see him as a repugnant character, representative of very distinctly right wing approach to immigration. For me, I see him as someone who proved to be ultimately miguided, but who’s head was in the right place.

A Pat on the Back and a Job Well Done…

I dislike award ceremonies. Not just because the last thing I won was in year 7, but because to me they represent something which is devolved from the initial point. Struggling to say it more eloquently than that, I feel examples are needed.

Last night was the Guild Awards. A night of fun and festivities whereby various prominent members of the student community are given awards to tell them how good they are at any given thing. To me, it seems that the Awards are an opportunity for these people to pat themselves on the back and further convince themselves that they are doing a good job. Which, it could be argued, they are not. At least not across the board, and whilst things such as the Vale Festival may be a growing success, there are other areas of student life which are noticably less successful. There are still plenty of other, smaller, groups which, in my opinion, because they do not have the vociferous characters that other groups do, fail to get the attention that maybe they deserve. There is a huge variety of different societies, groups and student organisations out there. So why does it seem to be the same people who are in the running for the awards? Now this may be unfair, I haven’t seen either the runners for the awards, nor have I seen the winners. Yet I would be willing to bet that the usual candidates were very much there, ready to praise themselves for another good year. Right.

A good year, for me, would have been unprecendented growth across the board, in societies, as well as in other things. Student participation, I would also be willing to bet, has either decreased, or at best, remained constant. There are three things which to me seem indicative of this.

Firstly Redbrick. The student paper (which in my opinion has gone downhill recently, but that’s another issue) which is, at the moment, really crying out for new writers, or sub-editors, or other contributors. When I first started writing for the paper there was a huge amount of people who would frequently write, providing a wide range of thoughts on a wide range of topics. Now they are struggling to convince people to continue writing. At the start of the academic year, naturally, there was a huge amount of interest in writing for Redbrick. Freshers came in with an idea of being a proactive journalist and contributing to a widely read organ. This illusion was quickly shattered (the amount of actual reporting is limited to just the ‘big’ stories, and, in all honesty, it isn’t widely read) and people became disinterested. Now I know that there are lots of people interested in the media. I have been to the Careers Centre Media day for the past two years, and at both events there was comfortably more than 200 people. This leads me to think that there is the interest in Journalism, and the media is there, but Redbrick, contrary to what it should be doing, is failing to encourage people to contribute, and is also failing to grow in terms of readership. There is more that could be said on this issue, but, like Redbrick, I shall abandon things here as there are things I wish to say about other issues.

Secondly then, elections. The success (which I will admit it was) of the Referendum back at the start of term was celebrated as having saved the Guild (and, in all honesty, FAB nights). Great. This was put very much into perspective by the elections for various roles in the Guild more recently. The lowest turnout for nearly twenty years, to me, doesn’t indicate that things are going well. It only serves to prove that the Referendum vote was anomalous. The election results are more telling, and are more indicative of the current state of student affairs. Not enough people really care. At a university of 28,000 students, this is a bad thing. At a university which may be disgruntled because there are now three (?) other universities in the city which are threatening to disrupt the face of university study in Birmingham, getting some 1500 votes for student president, to me is nowhere near good enough. Now it maybe that I have to great an expectation of the university students. However I am inclined to think that it is more likely that student affairs and issues do not adequately mainfest themselves in the things that bodies in and around the Guild do. People don’t care because the Guild is not doing enough to make them care. As evidenced by the referendum, if you really connect with the people things can begin to improve in terms of involvement.

Finally then, a point which links into the last one. Everything about the Guild is cliquey. I do not care what anybody says in defence of this point, the sheer fact that at any Guild releated event you will see the same people only serves to prove this to me. The Guild is a big playhouse for the few. Not the many. I will argue this all day long. By this I mean that the day to day activities in the Guild involve the same people. Things such as FAB are not of concern because they do not involve thinking about- students go to get drunk, irrespective of anything else. So many different events that happen within the Guild happen in front of the select few rather than the many more who should be, and probably are, interested. Discussions of how to improve the Guild involve the same people (of which I admit I am one) throwing the same things around, only to be told that propositions are impossible to implement for one reason or another. I am left wondering how this is possibly going to attract more people into using the various facilities that the Guild offers. I was in the Arc recently getting advice on a housing contract. I was sat in there for about ten minutes waiting, and in that time I saw five people walk past the entrance, and one other person who came into the room. Now it may have been a slow day, but I would be willing to guess that most days are like that.

The Guild has the potential to be so much more than it is, but until it steps away from patting itself on the back and thinking it is doing well, and actually takes a good hard look at itself, things won’t improve. And this isn’t just on the political side of things, it is in relation to the societies as well. Getting lots of people to sign up during freshers is all very well and good, but keeping their interest is the harder part, and, I’m sure that most, if not all, societies see a decline in student attendance during the course of the year. By all means therefore, have these award ceremonies, but only when they are justified. I don’t think that will happen for a few years yet. To me, such ceremonies are similar to a mid-table football team with aspirations of success, like mine, having end of season awards. They may be nice, but they shouldn’t mask the fact that there are still glaring problems.

Right. Rant over.

What is fact?

Having been busy recently, I have had neither the time nor the willingness to write anything about anything. This is despite recent events such as the budget, or the storms hitting the UK, or the death of Michael Todd, or English crickets continuous woeful form.

But today I saw this. And felt compelled to add my two cents worth.

Now on some level I think I agree with Geraldine Ferraro. She has, in my eyes, highlighted a very important issue which tends to be overlooked. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white” she said, and said that anything negative about Obama was instantly seized upon as being racist. For me, it should be much more widely accepted that racism does indeed work both ways. The culture in which we seem to live is that being racist only works towards black people. This should definately not be the case. It should be noted and accepted by society that white people can just as easily suffer racist abuse from black people as vice versa.

However, I completely disagree with her when she suggests that Obama was doing well because he was black. For me, he is doing well because he engages with Joe Public much better than Clinton. And I’m not still not sure that he plays the race card as frequently as Clinton plays her woman card. This whole issue seems to suggest to me that the whole Clinton team is beginning to feel the squeeze as things are moving towards the end of the race. Obama, apparently coolness personified, just plods on, doing what he is doing, very focused. Even the problems that he has faced, he has taken in his stride.

This is epitomised by events last week, as Hillary insisted she was given a raw deal by having to field the first question at every event the pair attended. Despite the success she had last week, she still trails Obama, and I think the pressure of being runner-up may be starting to really show now.

The times, they are a changing…

Whilst trawling through one of the oh-so-enjoyable books that I have to read for one of my courses I was interested to find the following quotation. The book is about British Radicalism in the 1790s.

“the press free, the laws simplified, judges unbiassed[sic], juries independent, needless places and pensions retrenched, immoderate salaries reduced, the public better served, taxes diminished and the necessaries of life more within reach of the poor, youth better educated, prisons less crowded, old age better provided for, and sumptous Feasts, at the expense of the starving poor, less frequent” (Cited in H.T. Dickinson British Radicalism and the French Revolution 1789- 1815)

The quote itself was written in 1792. It lists what the so-called radicals aimed to achieve. There is two very interesting things to note about it.

Firstly, that the issues highlighted here are still the same issues with which we are dealing today. Prison overcrowding, taxes, education, poor people and the poverty line, care for old people. All sound like watchwords from either Labour or the Conservatives spring conferences. Which leads me to wonder

a) If politics has gone round in a circle (ie changing things and then changing them back) over the course of 200 years.

or b) If in reality, nothing much has changed since the 1790s. With the exception of modernisation of course. At heart, the problems of the 1790s are the same problems of today, just dressed differently.

I’m inclined to think that the latter view is the more accurate one, and as politicians have for 200 years strived to solve these issues, it seems that people still have the same basic wants and needs as they used to. Politicians have not sorted out some of the basic issues facing many people. I would maintain that politics is still an elitist conception (although nowhere near as bad as back in the 1790s), and consequently, politicians are still failing to adequately bring politics to the people. Because this hasn’t been done, it can therefore be worked out that those basic issues people have will not have been adequately sorted.

Onto my second point, and this is rather briefer. As the books title suggests, these ideas were very much “radical” at the time. I would though, challenge anyone to suggest that either Brown’s Labour or Cameron’s Tories are “radical”. Both are jostling for the occupied middle ground, and are about as far away from “radical” as you can get.

Which therefore leads me to conclude that the goalposts have shifted somewhat. That the things which were radical are no longer considered radical implies to me that standards have changed. Those things which were radical are not any more. Free speech, unbiased judges, universal suffrage. These are all things we sort of take for granted now. Back in the 1790s these were radical. I’m thankful they aren’t any more.

He’s finally done it…

So good old Dave has finally come out and said something I agree with. At the Conservative Conference in Wales, Cameron has, amongst other things called for “broken politics” to be mended. He has insisted there is too much in the way of spin in politics, and that because of the actions of a few members of parliament, there has been a ‘breakdown of public faith’(BBC).

I agree, at least in part, with his whole speech. Blaming ’spin’ on the Labour party though, although probably accurate, is almost like shooting yourself in the foot, as the Conservatives now employ spin too.

Bur I do agree that politicians have become concerned with personality politics, which leads to a collapse of public confidence, as Cameron suggests. The trouble is, if you live by the sword (employing personalities to sell something) you inevitably die by it (when things go wrong for those personalities, they go really wrong). The public do not know which way to turn, there is no good option now, the question is about who is less bad. Consequently, the final option to them is to turn away. Be that in the form of not voting at all, or emmigrating to the continent or further afield.

Disillusionment is rife in Britain, and it should be the politicians job to do something to eradicate this frustration. As it is, the politicians are more concerned with political one-upmanship. They wish to outscore their opponent with a witty repost, or a bigger and better way of saying basically the same thing. The Conservatives have recently launched a nice new advertising campaign with promises of more police (surely paying the current ones a better wage first should be a priority?), an improved NHS, and a more stable economy. Which is all very well and good, and honestly, I think the campaign looks smart. But I’m asking myself whether the Labour camp will say the same thing, because, lets face it, they are not going to win any voters by offering a worse economy, or a failing NHS are they?

Returning to the point, I have long championed the argument that communications between MP’s and their electorate should be vastly improved. I still consider this the best way of removing disillusionment. If politicians talked more to their voters, then the voters can have fewer complaints about being ignored, and the MP’s would have a much greater understanding of what the people want.

That does not mean that I, as a voter, should simply wait for my politician to come and talk to me about what I think needs improving etc, but I maintain that the there should be a greater onus on communication, something which works both ways.

And so I am very much relieved that those in the Guild have finally clicked this. Checking out the manifestos for those running for President, and the same things seems to crop up (thus reflecting politics in general?). One of which is communication. They are beginning to understand that to be representative of the people is not simply to win votes but to actually talk to the people and act upon what they are saying.

Last week I was involved in a discussion with members of my department (both teaching and student) about the proposals for a restructure of the course. The staff wanted to know what we thought. There were (I think) three groups of roughly 10 people each who volunteered to learn more and offer criticisms or suggestions about this syllabus change. From this I’m led to believe that voluntary actions won’t work as well. Those at my meeting all had thoughts and opinions about the plans, and were keen to speak about it and discuss it. Students aren’t apathetic, they just need a push. If such meetings were compulsory (and I know of the difficulty of logistics) then I’m sure feedback would be useful as students would have concerns about their course, or university life in general. By making engagement compulsory, then maybe people could start getting enthused with things again.

It isn’t just small university admin-type politics either, there is no reason the Guild couldn’t have meetings, through the Guild Councillors, with the students to discuss things and give feedback on issues which affect them.

I’m just trying to propose some ideas with the main premise that people aren’t engaging because those in control do not engage with them in the first place. Improve communication, and I think you will go a long way towards improving politics.

Flavour of the month…

So, we are at that time of year again. The constant heckling by people who really, really, really want me to vote for them, or their chosen candidates in the Guild’s oh-so-great elections. Buoyed by the recent surprising success, those in the Guild will, maybe justifiably think that this year representation of the voters in the elections will be at an all time high. Without wishing to burst any bubbles, I’m inclined to disagree. These elections are so much different to the previous vote. Then there was a simple yes or no (or abstain, but only a comparative handful of people chose this route).

Now there is selection. And this is a huge problem. No longer have you got every member of the guild campaigning for their political futures. Instead you have a contest. And their challenge is to attract voters with their (not so) witty slogans as well as a colourful poster and maybe, if you are lucky, some form of policy. And there are, at least for the bigger roles, a few different candidates.

Asking people to make a decision based on policy is something much harder than asking them to save something I believe. The people of the university have shown themselves to be apathetic time and again, and the one anomalous result was the last vote. I think (but am willing to be corrected) there are about 28-29000 students at UoB. Those in the Guild celebrated like it was 1999 when they achieved over 10% of the students turning up to vote. There were 4010 votes cast for the referendum. That’s (according to Redbrick figures and my maths) just about 14% of the population.

Great.

I cannot see them matching that again. Which is why I agree in part with this article. But only in part. I agree that students are a-political. And I agree that it is nice to see refreshing policy politics take the stage rather than party politics which so frequently dogs our systems. However, I’m not so sure that this apathy can constitute a jump to being “not that radical”.

To me that is like saying that the tribes of the Amazon dislike football. How do you know? Has anyone asked them? I very much doubt it. The argument that those who are ‘radical’ (this term is something which gets thrown around too much) would have made themselves heard already is something which I do not buy into. Put simply I believe that those whose political outlook is ‘radical’ are afraid. They are afraid of being typecast by ignorant members of the higher authorities.

“Oh you have a view which is similar to the BNP’s? You must therefore want to eradicate everybody who isn’t white, and gas all the jews…We aren’t going to let you do this, we will stamp you down first!” (disclaimer: I do not condone the BNP and it’s racial policies at all).

These higher authorities came out in force last night to watch the public debate. About free speech. I won’t enter this argument again, but will note that common sense won. The higher authorities are dead set against people who hold radical views. I maintain that whilst there is ‘too extreme’, someone with a slightly more radical view prevents our increasingly centre-ist society from becoming sterile. Boring. Personality based. Radicalism is a good thing in society in general.

Having completely wandered from my initial thinking, I will make a swift return to the point. For the next few weeks I am expecting invites to 2oo or so different facebook groups. I am expecting to be given a small rainforest of paper explaining why it is so simple to vote for x or y, and I really should do it. I am expecting student politics to suddenly become the most important thing in the world, and I am expecting hardly anybody will care.

Let’s all be friends…

I hadn’t really thought about it before. Not until I saw the news today at any rate. And I really should have.

For Obama and Clinton, winning is everything. There will be no place for the runner-up. Seriously. The pair, I think, are growing less and less fond of each other as the days pass and Obama gathers momentum. The public smiles when gathered in the same place seem to mask the very private dislike the pair have of the other. Of course I could be wrong, but with Hillary losing her grip very quickly (Obama has just won in Wisconsin, and seems likely to take Hawaii too), the feeling of antipathy between the pair seems to be growing.

Both have been critical of the other during their campaigns, and I am left wondering, given they are still on the same side, whether they could ever really work together after this race is over, regardless of the outcome. More importantly than this is whether they would want to work together. Both, it must be noted are able politicians, they both have some good policies, and they both have some bad policies. I feel that they could work well together, had fate not pitted them against each other in this contest. For the failed candidate, will it be the end of public recognition? Those Republican candidates who have fallen by the wayside seem to have disappeared from the public eye. Thompson, Romney and Giuliani have all declared their backing for either of the two men left in the fight, but apart from that, little, certainly on this side of the pond, has been heard from any of them.

I suppose this is where the issue lies, media coverage. The media concern themselves with the real news, that is, those people who still are important, be it Clinton or Huckabee, Obama or McCain. The others are yesterdays news, chewed up, thrown around and rejected by in favour of the continuing process.

I return therefore to my initial musing. What will happen to either Obama or Clinton when they lose this race. To my mind, I am less fearful for Hillary. She has a reputation attached to being a former president’s wife, and a Presidential nominee. She, I think, will be fine. For Obama though, the future would be less clear cut, certainly from a public perspective. He would, like many before him, drop out of the public psyche and float around for a few years, until one day he releases a film about how cows are bad for the world, and claim the nobel prize for it.

Let us learn…

Whilst trawling through the quite frankly petty debate that is occurring on both the BULS and BUCF blogs, one thought occurred to me more than anything else.

The sheer triviality of it all.

There was one quote though that stitched me up: “I will walk the streets until I am without shoes to ensure that a Conservative Government remains a thing of the past and never a thing of the future”. Right.

Yes. For the time being the Conservatives are a thing of the past. However, it is a fools hope that they will stay that way. Whether it be in a year, five years or ten years, I can predict with complete confidence that the Conservatives will be the governing party of Britain again. Just like I can predict that Labour will be in power again in the future too.

It’s called cyclical history. These things come round. If they didn’t change then we surely would have had the same government since the 1700’s. And as this is such a silly idea, I’m not going to entertain it further.

Holding out the hope that Labour can, effectively, monopolise the government to the stage whereby the Conservatives cannot ever hold out the hope of coming back into power is a painfully funny suggestion. Such a proposal, if to be taken seriously, would mean that we have a Labour controlled dictatorship (albeit a warped one whereby they were elected and there was a freedom of choice amongst the voters).

The petty fighting that is going on amongst the two groups- the future of each party nonetheless- is indicative of the way the politics is going. Personality politics is too much of an issue nowadays, and it detracts from the more important issues of exactly what either party can offer the people of Britain. And it is here where the problems lie. Neither side has anything ‘new’ and ’substantial’ to offer voters. Labour, as the party in government, are churning out ‘common sense’ bills and laws, and are not (other than losing lots of data and mismanaging money) doing anything to really hack off the public. Consequently, the Conservatives are not able to offer anything to compete and they are stuck between a rock (of offering the same as Labour, albeit with a more charismatic leader) and a hard place (of offering more radical policies which may alienate the fickle middle ground voters).

This isn’t a healthy way for the country to be, I don’t think. But it was something of an inevitability of our party system (which, for all intents and purposes is a two party one) since the dawn of mass politics.

I’m left hoping that both sides will get back to trying to work out some sort of policy, rather than playing the personality card.

Blackadder: “We in the Adder party are going to fight this campaign on issues, not personalities”

Interviewer: “Why is that?”

Blackadder: “Because our candidate doesn’t have a personality”

Is this the way politics should really be?