As a politician I am often asked: Do you have an opinion and if so are you willing to share it?
At a time of rapid social change, political instability and febrile uncertainty - and with, let us not forget - an general election on the horizon - these are not easy questions to answer.
However, taking them [bravely] in order:
Speaking as a Christian-Muslim-Hindu-Buddhist-Rastafarian-Jewish-Humanist-Agnostic- Atheist with a keen sense of the vital importance of a solid spiritual/scientific/metaphysical neo-realist magical grounding, I am keen to give as little offence as possible and happy to agree with the next man/woman/child/thing whilst being cautious in expressing any opinions and cognizant of the sad fact that any such expressed opinions might be held against me. The fundamental problem with opinions is, in my view: [a] that everyone has them but they are not all the same, [b] anyone whose opinions differ from mine is unlikley to agree with me [ergo not vote for me] and [c] they can be dangerous if expressed openly, freely and with conviction and may lead to personal threats including hate speech and actual bodily harm]*. Caveats, coroloraries, unacknowledged conditions/unintended consequences, contexts, sensitivities, relativities, equalities, inclusivities, freedoms, safeties and non-judgemental factors also have to be taken carefully into account.
* NB Whilst a useful shield in past times, the Official Secrets Act does not prevent the expression of any and all opinions and is in my view no longer fit for purpose. The provision of a personalised physical security package via a collective Group 4 special MP's discount offer is not the solution either.
As some one who is a pro-Green electric vehicle owner with a strong belief in the future of the internal combustion engine and a healthy environmental skepticism, I am [for example] strongly pro-ULEZ but also an unstinting supporter of the rights of motorists to access all of the King's highways without hindrance or charge. A vocal advocate of the need to maximise our use of sustainable energy, I believe our future lies in the responsible exploitation of all of our fossil fuel resources as well in nuclear power. Equally as a staunch defender of the rights of individuals to self-identify as anything they choose, I believe that the traditional family with its male and female role models [and indeed roles] is the backbone of this country. I greatly admire my wife/partner/significant other and fully respect her/his/their right not to accept his/her/their traditional stereotypical roles in the domestic non-hierarchy whilst valuing the idea of a traditional roast dinner waiting for me at the table on my return home from golf on a Sunday morning. I regard all of my constituents as equally treasurable - even those I respect/despise for voting the other [and note I do not say "wrong"] way.
On social matters, I am a liberal conservative multiculturalist with socialist tendencies tempered by a strong belief in the capitalist system, grounded as that is in the British way of life which has been so enriched of late by our enthusiastic embrace of diverse non-European ideas, systems attitudes and creeds. I am ambivalent with regard to statues of old men, but strongly denounce the slave trade whilst understanding that present day values cannot be projected back into eras very different from our own. I believe the Elgin marbles should be divided into exactly equal pieces and half repatriated to Elgin. My family has a proud history of being friendly to "foreigners" and I am both colour-blind and racially hyper-aware and believe we should all act "appropriately" [whatever that means].
To those who say mass immigration [legal and illegal] threatens our way of life I say: indeed it does but look at all the positives**. To those who say the present government has lost its way over the economy, national security and every policy under the sun and that it has squandered our once supreme place on the world's stage, I say a quiet "hear hear" whilst believing that this is the strongest, smartest and most principled administration I have witnessed in my lifetime. Could an alternative government do a better job? Absolutely yes and no.
** Note to PPS. Please make a list if you can think of any.
Should he/she/its/gender-fluids/undecideds/indifferent have equal rights: of course, but equal to whose? Is J K Rowling an opinionated bigot who should be shot? Whilst it is, of course, possible to agree with those who believe so, it is important to state that she has a right to hold and express her perfectly sane and wholly justifiable opinions which are shared by very many sensible people. And here we hit the heart of the matter!
As the French philosopher, activist, revolutionary, traditionalist [but not painter] Jean-Jacques Rousseau once opined "a paradox is no less of a paradox by being a paradox". I believe we can all take a lesson [and perhaps a modicum of comfort] from that!
Finally - and with a weather-eye on the upcoming election - it is self-evident that the first past the post system is the proper "British" way of ensuring that not all votes count equally, though I admit that it has its "flaws" and have a great deal of time for those who argue that it should be replaced by the much fairer [but far less comprehensible and possibly less favourable] proportional representation, single-transferable vote [the so-called "rigged"] system in circumstances where that is more appropriate, provided, of course, that everyone agrees. Perhaps a first past the post referendum could decide.
As to the second part of the question: No!
NEXT TIME:
My personal take on HSR2, Gaza, Harry and Megan, the Oscars, Harry McGuire, Kier Starmer, Gary Lineker, the Post Office Scandal, the Contrik-69 Enquiry, Joe Biden-Mytime, Spangles, petrol prices, inflation, Brexit, GB News, Crossroads, Andy Williams and Pope Pious X.
ADDENDUM: A DIFFERENT POLITICIAN WRITES:
Sir,
Now that we politicians are under an existential threat for expressing any opinion at all, surely the time has come to ban all opinions from politics and declare the Houses of Parliament [as well as Local Government Offices] politics-free zones. With a general election looming, the expression of any opinion [let alone the exposure of any prejudice] is an impediment to the proper and informed conduct of affairs and likely to prove injurious to the outcome of the election. I for one am "out" with regards to "saying something in public" prefering to keep my thoughts to myself. Anything less would be "unsafe" and quite possibly irresponsible vis-a-vis my family with whom I expect to be spending much more time after the election.
Sincerely
Sir Rishi Starmer-Davey-Yousaf-Drakeford-Lucas