So, who should I vote for?

Originally this piece was called, ‘Who the fuck do I vote for??!!!’ but I changed it to protect my public image for the three people on Earth who still think I’m genteel. I don’t overuse punctuation though. Promise. (Apart from brackets.)

I’m not going to pretend that I’ve been a card carrying Labour member for my entire life. I was a member back when I was about 16 when my father enrolled me in a complete misunderstanding about where his control over my political beliefs ended. To be fair, he has not done this since he switched his allegiance from Labour to Lib Dem to Labour to UKIP. I think he was a Tory once. So I have had a little more Labour consistency than some, even when I haven’t always had the card in my wallet. I did, in 1997, go out campaigning on behalf of Ivor Caplin who won Hove for Labour, bringing about the awesome Paxman line to a squirming Conservative, ‘If you can’t keep Hove, then what can you keep?’ I did that. Me.

So I’m really, really sorry about Blair.

'No! It wasn't me! It was that dastardly Pip! (Picture EPA)

I strayed since then, wandering into Lib Dem areas when Clegg was shooting up like a glowing flower of liberal glory in 2010.

'I'm not sure how I got here, really, but I'm pretty sure it's Pip's fault...' (Image PA)

I’m really sorry about that too.

But, in general, I’m Labour. I joined Labour again in 2015 in the week following the general election. I wanted to have a say in who led my party and who would stand up in parliament and argue for the people I care about. I wanted someone who would fight for the nurses, the teachers, the sick, the disabled, the poor. I wanted some belief in a party that is strong enough to give a shit about the people who need it most.

Initially, I was fairly unfocused, even though I knew I wanted a say. I looked at the candidates finding them all a little bit bland, a little bit too prepared to trot out trite catchphrases and have the bog-standard politician’s response to every event;  ‘I will fight for the working person!’ ‘I believe in trust!’ ‘I want a country full of hot air because there are Words which are Words That I Think People Want to Hear and I should say them!’ And the one that has been making my flesh crawl for the past five years; ‘I’m shocked and appalled!’ No you’re not. If you were, it might be possible for you to have an actual, human emotion or at least dig deep in your thesaurus for a couple of different words. I’ve heard that phrase three times in the past month.

Then, out of the darkness, came a wonderful light…

'Look at me, thinking about higher things!' (picture, Telegraph)

Oh yes! Corbyn! Oh the absolute joy of finding someone who thinks and feels exactly what I think and feel.

I once told my children that if you want to have an MP who agrees with you 100%, then you have to stand yourself.

Corbyn hits my ideology at about 95%.

There was no question in my mind that I would vote for Corbyn. I put the X in that particular box because I wanted to. Not for kicks, not for fun and not because I wanted to screw everyone. I wanted to. He won. And in some ways, I’m sorry about that.

I spent the first couple of weeks making the excuse that he was just settling in. Just getting his feet under the table, as it were. That accounted for his quietness.

The ‘real questions from real people’ strategy was interesting and based on excellent ideals. There was suddenly a hotline to parliament rather than the old fashioned way of getting off your arse, going to your constituency clinic, explaining your point to your MP and allowing that MP to try to get that question into Prime Ministers Question Time. In practice though, it kind of made Corbyn seem as though he was hiding behind ‘Carol, from High Wickham’. He liked her question. But don’t think her question might be his question.

He needed to straighten his suit. I don’t give a rat’s arse about anyone’s clothing from Prada to Primark. I have no right to judge given that I show up to work in jeans every day because I honestly believe that doing my job well is a higher priority than wearing formal clothes while doing it. But I’m not standing up in parliament while doing it. If I were, I don’t think I’d allow my choice of clothing to score higher in people’s minds than what I was saying. 

He didn’t sing the National Anthem. I do think it’s better that he didn’t do something didn’t believe in just for the look of things. I agree with that sentiment 100%. Or maybe just 95%

I also think there is a sort of rudeness to it. Making a point, fine. Making a point that’s going to deliberately upset people in the context of a moving and solemn event is not fine. My atheist friends managed to choke out an ‘amen’ at my wedding, and even join in with hymns about Gd, even though they clearly don’t amen. My wedding simply wasn’t the right place to make that point. Even if they didn’t speak it, they didn’t use it as a photo op to demonstrate their non-amen qualities. So hurrah not saying something he didn’t believe and instead, bowing his head respectfully, but not-hurrah for using the Battle of Britain memorial to push that image home.

That memorial happened because of the collective belief that the magnitude of what happened in two world wars leaves a hole that never goes away. We don’t want to forget these people, who said the amen, who polished their shoes, who saluted senior officers, and who did it not necessarily because it spoke to their core beliefs but because they valued and loved this country which does, I have to point out, have a monarchy. Whether we want it to or not, it does have one, and it was a part of what these people were doing when they polished their shoes and went out to die. We don’t just want to remember what they did but who they are; we want to speak for them because they can’t. Just mime the national anthem when you’re standing on their graves, then talk about republicanism or atheism loudly in the appropriate place.

Or maybe don’t. Maybe you know that stance would cost you the support of an awful lot of people. So maybe stay silent.

The silence pissed me off a lot. One of the reasons I know that I could never be a politician is that I know you have to make a lot of noise. You can’t do it quietly. (The other reason is that I’m God-damned lazy, and, y’know, the brackets thing.)

Be noisy. Be angry. Be aggressive. Attack when you need to attack. There’s no point having all these beliefs and making all these choices if you’re not being loud while doing it.  

You can’t have a leader who won’t shout back. I know it’s the old sort of politics, and I know there’s no need to stoop to their level, but there actually kind of is. You can’t talk softly and carry a big stick if you’re not carrying the big stick. Sometimes you have to shout.

And then the silence that’s really offensive; if someone accuses a member of your team of bullying, then you respond to it pretty fucking quickly, and you do so clearly and visibly. You can’t say, ‘there’s no place for bullying…’ when you are making a space for bullying by appearing to do nothing at all. That’s not a deterrent in school, in work or in a political party. Investigate, determine and resolve, do it quickly, and make sure everybody knows you’re doing it.

 So there I am. I can still see that Jeremy Corbyn believes in all the liberal and socialist things that I believe in, but I can also see that he’s not a great leader. He can’t manage people and situations well. But then… I’m not sure Owen Smith can either. He’s already pissing me off, and he’s been on my radar for less than three weeks. His major selling point is that he’s Not Corbyn. The understanding is that he’ll gather all the Not Corbyn votes. That’s precisely why they haven’t split the Not Corbyn votes between a number of candidates. But I don’t want to give mine away so easily.

'Can I have a beige background? I think beige is nice. My whole house is beige.' (Picture, Getty)

We seem to have returned to the bland. We have returned to the, ‘I’m a feminist!’ because ‘That’s what feminists want me to say!’ and ‘I hope they don’t notice that Corbyn’s shadow cabinet has a greater proportion of women than there has ever been!’

We have returned to the, ‘I’m a socialist too! Honest!’ He wants to ‘Fight for the workers!’ We’ve returned to ‘Shocked!’ and fucking ‘Appalled!’

This is what 'shocked and appalled looks like. You might as well post it on Twitter.

But on the other side, we’ve still got the, ‘Speak softly and try to work out what a big stick might look like.’

I just want to shake them all up and yell at them to say what they fucking believe rather than what their campaign managers want them to look like they believe. I want to yell at them to shout it from the bloody rooftops rather than just feel it in their hearts.

I don’t feel pulled towards either camp and there isn’t a third camp to pull towards. I am frustrated.

I need someone to vote for. Someone to give the party and country I love to.

I know that I really can’t complain. I know that I don’t want to stand either. I know I can’t handle the pressure.

(I also use too many brackets.)

An Addendum

I know I’ve harped on about this to stupid levels in the past few days, and I’m sorry, I can’t guarantee this is my last post on the subject. The thing is, I think it’s really important.

John Finnemore (remember my mate?) gave a startling, brilliant and moving speech about this, about seven minutes into the Now Show on BBC Radio 4 yesterday. It’s available on iPlayer and it’s worth hearing. Sod it; here’s a link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayerThe Now Show Series 34 Episode 5

Finnemore reminded people that right now, at this moment, while we’re being listened to for the first time ever, we need to keep shouting about what’s going on in our tabloid press.

Not just shouting like my fairly pathetic efforts on this blog, but shouting towards the people who do, or at least should, listen. Send emails, write letters, keep talking. Show that we expect standards from the press and that we won’t forget this and go away.

I know some of you who read this aren't of voting age yet, and I wanted to remind you that this doesn’t mean your MP doesn’t represent you. They do, and they have a duty to at least listen to what you have to say, and they have a responsibility to try to answer your questions. That is what they are being paid for.

In case you didn’t know how to find your MPs contact details they are available on line here:

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/ 

And their email is given if you use the search embedded in the Guardian’s politics page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics 

You need to put your full name and postal address on any emails you send.

Please don’t forget that you have a voice.

Pip xxx

In Which I Apologise.

On Tuesday I wrote:

No, I don’t feel sorry for the Tabloids, or any of their journalists. In fact, if the tabloid offices all burned to the ground tonight, and there were no more of the shit-rags printed from this day forth, I think that the world would be a little brighter and little more pleasant. And I don’t give a flying fuck about the poor, poor journalists who would be out of work because of it.

This was an angry reaction and I was wrong to judge all the tabloid journalists based on the words of just one of them. I apologise unreservedly for that. I am sure that there are good, ethical, tabloid journalists who want to work within the law to bring the truth about important injustices to the public’s attention, and they should be honoured and allowed to work freely.

When I’m thinking clearly, I do actually know not to generalise. For example, I know that David Cameron lied on Friday when he denied that he had been given specific information about Andy Coulson’s work with corrupt police officers. But this doesn’t mean that all politicians are lying liars. It doesn’t even mean that all Conservative politicians are lying liars. It just means that David Cameron is.

So it was wrong for me to generalise in this way, and I apologise for it.

In addition, on Tuesday I hadn’t foreseen one of the tabloid newspapers would actually close within the week, so my words were just vitriol. When this closure was announced, I reviewed my ‘not giving a flying fuck about journalist’ stance, and it turns out I do care. In fact I very much care that the people who have lost their jobs are not the ones responsible for any crimes, whereas at least one of those who is responsible is still being paid by News International. It doesn’t take a genius to see this is unjust, which is good, because I’m clearly not a genius.

I do believe in a free press. I believe in a balanced press. I believe in investigative journalism. I think it’s damned important to have all of these things. However, I do think journalists should work within the law. I don’t care how close to the line they go, I don’t care if they step on the line and dance on it. I think that the people who are able to dance on the line are the geniuses in the world of journalism.

But I don’t think they should cross the line, and I believe that those who do should be prosecuted accordingly.

In addition to all of this, I think that the free press should report the news. I think that there is space within newspapers to print their opinions on the news. But I think a distinction should be made between the things that the public need to know (the news) and the things that the public enjoy hearing about (the gossip). I think that there might be a place for both of them in the media as a whole, but the gossip needs to be distinct from news.

I can see that the distinction might be blurred in some cases. For example, if the gossip highlights the hypocrisy of a certain figure, it might also be news. If the gossip suggests criminal activity then it is certainly news. If the gossip is just so that people can point their fingers and laugh at someone, then it isn’t news.

One of my problems with the tabloid press is that I don’t think anyone is even trying to make this distinction any more. Anyone, anyone who may have had their fifteen minutes of fame for any reason is looked at as a potential story. It doesn’t matter to them whether that story is news or gossip because gossip sells newspapers, but in my opinion, gossip does not need or warrant the protection of a free press. A free press should only apply to news; something that the public needs to know.

In addition, and this is my second big problem with the tabloid press at the moment; in order to qualify for ‘news’ status, the gossip needs to be true.

I did a very quick and incredibly unscientific experiment yesterday. I searched for the words ‘The Sun Libel’. I then searched ‘News of the World Libel.’ Then, for balance I then searched ‘Guardian Libel’.

The results were not startling or surprising. The majority of links from the Sun and the News of the World were reports of libel cases against those two newspapers. Most of them were recent and in the majority the newspapers lost the case. In comparison, I had to look quite hard to find libel losses against the Guardian.  It goes without question that if the information isn’t even true, then it certainly isn’t news.

So I still have concerns about a number of tabloid journalists. I think that a number of them dehumanise people and turn them into stories, and I think that a number of them lie. I don’t think ALL tabloid journalists do this, but I do have concerns that the ones that do are the ones that rise high in the tabloid press.

So I do have sympathy for the journalists who lost their jobs this week, and I apologise for my ranty rage against the whole lot of them. However, I really hope that any investigations look closely at all the other newspapers and their staff, both tabloid and broadsheet (or berliner) and I hope that the anyone who is found to have broken the law is prosecuted for it.

I then hope that all the journalists who act within the law are allowed to continue free and unrestrained to publish the news.