My tale of me - Chris Jenkinson

Francis Maude, chairman of the Tory party, has admitted they have practically no policies other than destroying their 170 year-old ideology for the sake of looking nice on TV. In one of the most bizarre and unfortunate comparisons of all time he compared their four-page document of “aims” and “values” to firstly (and ironically), the Lord’s Prayer, and secondly, to the Ten Commandments.

Why is it ironic? The Lord’s Prayer is, with minor alterations, Matthew 6:9-13, which is preceded by:

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.
But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words (Matthew, 6:5-7, emphasis mine).

The Lord’s Prayer was given in the Bible as a model prayer to praise God due to the vanity of some men who “competed” for public adoration and respect by worshipping God in public with what we now call sound bites. It extols the importance of praising God because he is God. That the Tories compare their hollow sound bite “values” to verses of the Bible which denounce PR spin is laughable.

Maude’s comparison to the Ten Commandments (Exodus, 20:2-17) is also entirely specious, as while both documents are a list of imperative values, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God himself and as such are not open to question, debate or discussion. They are given as self-evident statements, as if they were given reasons it would give them imperfection. Like the Ten Commandments, the Tory “aims” and “values” document is presented in a series of self-evident statements with no justification. Perhaps this is because some of their aims and values are so vague that they would be shared by practically every rational human. “We believe there is more to life than money”, “[we] will be hard-nosed defenders of freedom”, “[we] will represent all our country in all its diversity”. Who objects to these three statements? But there are others which are also given without justification which many would object to, such as the encouragement of the creation of wealth for wealth’s sake, which would sit uncomfortably with many socialists, or state provision of financial backing for art, music, and sport, which many members of the Tory party would object to as a waste of tax money.

Policy needs justification. It is the reasons behind a decision which lead to public support. Policy by central office diktat is always worse than policy formed by democratic decision-making following discussion and debate. That the chairman of the Tory party would defend their “aims” and “values” manifesto with its complete lack of reasoning or justification (perhaps explaining why only 27% of Tory party members bothered to vote on adopting it), and also compare it to the Lord’s Prayer, which condemns PR exercises, and the Ten Commandments, which is the divine word of an infallible God, just goes to show how the Tories can never be trusted in government.

Alan Johnson’s recent announcement to axe maths GCSE coursework and have all other coursework done under strict supervision is a major step backwards. The concept that years and years of study can be compressed into a one-hour exam is not only unfair towards students but it leads to schools teaching how to pass an exam, rather than inspiring students in their subject.The boring repetition of material dulls children’s minds and instead of enthusing them to continue with higher education causes them to drop out at sixteen with a few GCSEs or in worrying high numbers of cases, with no GCSEs at all.

If our education system treated young people as adults letting them work on their own and made them want to learn more about their subject, more would stick with education. New Labour can crow “education education education” but at the end of the day with youth crime on the rise, what do they have to show for it?

In Manchester on a fine Saturday afternoon was the protest march against the war in Iraq organised by the Stop the War Coalition with somewhere between 20 to 50 thousand people walking around the city centre with Respect/SWP banners and silly whistles shouting things like “Bush and Blair, Go Go Go” and “who’s a terrorist, Blair’s a terrorist”. Naturally I took part walking around, with a LDYS banner we had gotten our hands on for our stall at Fresher’s Week at Man Uni. There were also many of the Lib Dem councillors taking part. It was all very emotional and somewhat self-congratulatory - especially the speeches at the start by the organisers who were giving themselves incredibly large pats on the back (a polite way of putting it) for their role in “winning the public debate” on everything they’ve ever discussed.

A large problem was that it was largely preaching to the converted - who would take part in a march who hasn’t made their minds up already? I suppose the shouting would be heard by staff in nearby shops and office blocks, but if I had not made my mind up and I heard “Bush’s a wanker” I would roll my eyes, sigh and become even more convinced that most anti-war protesters are a bunch of loony communists who are as incapable of rational debate and are as keen on slogans and soundbites as New Labour.

As this was the first march I had been to I was keen to see what actually happens. All the interesting protests you hear on the news are there because there’s been major confrontations with the police with tear gas and riot shields being employed. A slightly infantile part of me was longing for this to occur right before my very eyes, but it was very peaceful and the police were very helpful and friendly, with only one officer I saw actually instructing a protester to do something. Most police officers seemed to be enjoying themselves. That was what I liked. What I did not like were parents bringing their children along, especially young children. Babies and toddlers don’t really know what is going on so are not being indoctrinated but children upwards of 8 years old are hearing repeated slogans and soundbites and these would be ingrained into their minds. How are they to take part in political debate as they grow when they have only very biased bullet point statements to think of? It breeds intolerance for opposing viewpoints which in ages gone by has led to slavery and fascism.

This is not to say I am in support of the war in Iraq, I am not and I think it is a tragedy for the people of Iraq and has done more to ruin the reputation of the United Kingdom as a peaceful arbiter than any other thing in the past. The UK has much to be proud for but even if you give someone 9 fantastic presents but offend them once, you’re an arsehole, not 90% great friend. This has no bearing on the issue that indoctrinating people at an age when they are not emotionally developed enough to recognise the difference between facts and opinions. That the Earth is spherically shaped is a fact. That the Iraq war was morally valid is clearly not a fact, but neither is that the Iraq war was not justified. Many of the arguments for removing Saddam Hussein from power are very valid. Others were not.

Parents who bring their young children to protests - children who have uncritically accepted their parents’ political opinions as fact - are more repugnant than any changes Blair’s government has done to the education system. It is scientifically proven that young minds are not fully developed, and deprogramming entrenched opinions is very difficult. It is easy to teach young children to accept opinion as fact, however this is simple ideological brainwashing and it is intolerable, cult-like behaviour. Doctrinal teachings are unjustifiable whatever the subject, whether they concern the war in Iraq, faith, even human rights. People should know why something is worth supporting. That is the purpose of a liberal democracy.