Musings on the misuse of language - it's a matter of scale

I was on my way to Potsdam this evening, when I was shaken from my gaze out of the window by the announcement of our next halt, Wannsee.

It's quite a pretty place, on the bank of a largish lake, but is perhaps famous for being the location for what is probably the most infamous planning and administrative meeting in history. For those who have not studied history, it was at Wannsee that the 'Final Solution' to the Nazis' 'Jewish problem' was agreed, leading to the deaths of millions of people whose sole mistake was to be deemed to be of a religion determined to be a threat to the German race.

In our political discourse, we often see the word 'evil' used in an almost throwaway manner - the Guardian's comments sections are riddled with it, usually aimed as an individual politician, or a political party, or a specific policy, as though it is intended to cause pain and suffering, perhaps death, to those affected. And, of course, it isn't. We simply don't live in a country like that, and even those perceived to be on the lunatic fringe of British politics wouldn't publicly call for such consequences.

Most, if not all, mainstream politicians understand that, especially when money is tight, there will be those who lose out because of the impact of a policy decision. Sometimes, they are so blinded by ideology that they fail to consider, or do not want to consider, the negative impact of their legislative and administrative acts. But it is seldom deliberate, or made where they know that there is a less damaging option.

And yet we continue to bandy around the 'E' word because it seems improbable at best that our opponents do what they do because they think it best, because their solution fits within a philosophical underpinning that is broadly consistent.

So, if I might be so bold to ask, the next time you look to cast accusations of evilness, remember this - there is real evil in this world, where almost unimaginable cruelty is inflicted on people because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and have done nothing to merit it. That, my friends, is evil and we shouldn't belittle it by lumping it together with the politics of austerity.

Dear Anonymous...

I have a rule here, in that;

I do moderate comments, rejecting those I deem to be offensive, libellous or otherwise unacceptable. Anonymous commenters can expect to be either ignored or abused unless I agree with them. After all, like any publisher, I maintain the right to uphold certain standards. However, dissent with my views shall not, in itself, cause me to reject a comment.

And, generally, I stick to it. However, today, this comment arrived for moderation (I moderate all comments for self-protection as much as anything else);

The sooner this liar goes the better. He is dishonest and loves a cover up. He is not an action man and backs off doing anything positive ... The voters see him as a loser and if the LD party doesnt change him now they will lose the 2015 voters just like they did in the 2014 local election this week.

It is, self-evidently, an ad hominem attack, clearly made by someone who doesn't like Nick Clegg. However, it is, as so many of these are, anonymous. So, dear anonymous reader, here is my response.

Your blanket smear of a human being, albeit a politician, adds nothing to the quality or tenor of public debate, made worse by the fact that you demonstrate that you don't have the courage of your convictions by failing to put a name to your tirade.

Regardless of what you or I think of Nick Clegg, he at least has had the decency to put himself up for election, explain what he hopes to achieve and offer you, the voter, one of a range of choices that you may take or not, as you see fit. He made the decision four years ago to go into government, at a time when all the potential courses of action were likely to be unpopular, and give it a go. You, on the other hand, have decided that you want to behave in such a manner as to drive any normal human being as far away from the political arena as possible.

There is, my anonymous correspondent, a price to be paid, in that, by your behaviour, you help to ensure that politics becomes an arena for those that want power for power's sake, or that have a skin so thick that they can handle the abuse or, worst of all, hold views so extreme and with such venom that you ought to be rather worried - you may very well be the sort of person that, eventually, is on the receiving end of that venom.

Politics is, in this country, and probably elsewhere, an increasingly unpleasant business, in which an ever smaller number of increasingly unrepresentative individuals hold more and more sway as ordinary people give up their involvement in civic society - the number of people who join political parties is almost catastrophically low in relative terms.

So, my anonymous correspondent, thank you. Thank you for demonstrating that there is an element of the public, hopefully small, that should count its blessings. Because if the sort of behaviour that you believe is acceptable were to become standard, you had better believe that you would be living in a society where your choice to be so abusive would make you either a member of a rather unpleasant regime, or a victim of it.

But have a nice day, nonetheless...

Politics and the Media: isn't there something more important than Jeremy Hunt?

Let's see. We've booked David Cameron for the sofa, Andrew Marr is in makeup, so, what shall we have him talk about?

Well, what's happening? The economy is back in recession and there are important local government elections next week, the Leveson Enquiry is still exposing the complicity between government and the Murdoch 'empire', unemployment is far too high, the Eurozone is in trouble (again). So many choices...

I know, let's talk about Jeremy Hunt!

Don't get me wrong, the behaviour of a member of the Cabinet is a serious business, but we're hardly likely to learn anything from an attempted cross-examination of his boss. And whilst anyone who doesn't like this government, or David Cameron, will probably have enjoyed the experience, they won't actually have learned much. Cameron demonstrated that he believes in loyalty - usually a good thing - but perhaps demonstrated a tin ear when it comes to public perception - which he may pay for later.

And yes, late in the interview, there was a brief exchange on the economy, which allowed Cameron to say how much he cares and how hard he, and the Government, are working to turn things around. As if he was going to say anything else...

It reminds me that the political debate in this country is insular and closed. Do the public care much about the fate of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Will his fate impact on many people? Is he irreplaceable? The answer to all of these questions is no. Does Jeremy Hunt have an impact on the economy, on inflation, on war and peace? No, not one jot.

And yet, journalists talk to politicians, politicians to journalists, all the while not actually talking to us. No wonder that people feel further and further removed from politics.

At a time when we should all be focussing on how to build a sustainable economy, or how to provide care for an increasing elderly population, the debate is dominated by the fate of one, rather insignificant, politician. So, for pity's sake, have Sir Alex Allan look at it, and let us get on with something important.

Of course, that won't happen in our increasingly personality-driven body politic. Who's up, who's down, who is in and who is out - so much easier than the complex issues of economics or international affairs. The examination of big ideas - what balance to we want to achieve in our economy, what steps should government take to achieve that, how can government fund its activities and what those activities should be, what relationship should we have with our neighbours, our friends, our enemies - is complex, requiring reflection, close examination... and listening to the answers.

But no, we've all tuned in to watch the other guy being skewered by some bloke in a suit, whose job is to make sneering comments, interrupt virtually every answer and generally preen - yes, I'm looking at you, Jon Sopel and Jeremy Paxman - a disease which has even spread as far as local radio. I don't really care what the interviewer thinks, and I don't want him/her to do anything other than ask intelligent questions and allow the interviewee to answer them. Don't let them waffle, but do allow them to develop an argument. And if you won't, don't be surprised when politicians respond in meaningless, glib soundbites. After all, that's all that you've allowed them...

But then, as the public don't appear to care either, perhaps we have the politics that we deserve...

And talking about a sense of perspective...

I am reminded that, as usual, Monty Python had found a lighter way of noting where we fit within the universe...

Somewhere out there, is someone thinking what I'm thinking?

One of the many joys of living in a small, dimly-lit village is the night sky.

In London, light pollution means that only the brighter stars can be seen with the naked eye. In Creeting St Peter, the night sky is a sea of lights, tiny pinpoints marking who knows what.

It is the sort of sky to inspire philosophers and dreamers. For me though, it is a reassuring reminder that, in a world where people can be quite irritatingly certain about things regardless of the uncertainties that exist in political decision making, that there are vast areas of doubt and uncertainty, and that we are a small backwater in a vast universe...