I'm out of touch, you're out of time…

As well as being the title of an immortal Hall & Oates song, 'out of touch' remains one of the most frustrating, facile and ultimately meaningless insults in political discourse.

I mean, why bother to argue against the points your political opponents put forward, and the policies they espouse, when you can just discredit them as people in the eyes of the electorate by describing them as 'out of touch' – proud members of an èlite professional political class* so cosseted and so far removed from 'ordinary life' that they have no idea what 'normal' people go through?

Of course, the whole thing is predicated on the idea that everyone wants their politicians to be ordinary and just like them – personally, I can't think of anything worse – but more to the point, it is complete nonsense.

The Daily Mail highlights how 'professional politicians'* like Labour leader Ed Miliband have come under fire for never having had a 'real job' (whatever that means).  'How can a politician hope to run the country properly if he's never even had a real job like real people? He doesn't know what things are like for us! No one fully understands life until they've worked in a shop!' goes the argument.  Unfortunately, by that logic, those of us who've never worked in politics have no idea what life is like for politicians, and therefore have no authority to comment on the things they say or do either.

It's time we stopped pretending that 'politics' and 'the real world' exist on two totally separate planes, completely removed from each other.  Politics doesn't exist in a bubble; it is a vital part of a functioning society.  The decisions of politicians directly affect the rest of us – and what happens in business, in the charitable sector, in the church, etc. also has an impact on politics.  Everybody's experiences differ, but we all live in 'the real world' – and plenty of politicians work as hard at their jobs as you do at yours.  Now can we please talk about policies, instead of who's worked as a milkman or a ferret-trainer?

* As I have remarked before, there is an ongoing crusade against so-called 'professional politicians' – who are considered axiomatically bad, for some reason – but what's the alternative?  Amateur politicians?  Yeah, they sound competent…

Equality of outrage

Following the promotion of several female MPs to the Cabinet in last week's reshuffle, criticism was heaped upon the Daily Mail* for it's coverage of the new ministers - which focussed on their clothes and general appearance, rather than their qualifications for the job and their qualities as serious politicians.

Labour MP for Bishop Auckland Helen Goodman, however, chose to Tweet this:

It does female ministers a great disservice to think they are only there to 'make up the numbers'; when a male politician is promoted, no one asks whether he has been put in that position because the Prime Minister thinks he'll be good at it, or just to keep up appearances - why should we cast these aspersions on female MPs?

When Sajid Javid was made Minister for Culture, attacks in the press focused mainly on the fact he was a former banker, rather than claiming he was only there to increase muslim representation in the cabinet instead of on his own merits - even though a look at the cultural background of someone who is in charge of culture might actually be relevant to how he might undertake the job.  It is distasteful that female politicians are still seen merely as 'window dressing'.

For those interested in more than just a female MP's clothing and appearance, this excellent Buzzfeed article goes into more detail about some of the newly promoted ministers' CVs, backgrounds, what inspires them, etc. - and aptly demonstrates that they have been put in the cabinet on merit, not purely to fulfil some quota.

A few hours later, Helen Goodman deleted her Tweet, and wrote that it had been 'intended as a lighthearted remark'.

I'm very sorry my last tweet offended some people. I intended it as a light-hearted remark.
— Helen Goodman (@HelenGoodmanMP) July 17, 2014

Now, I don't really think that Helen Goodman is sexist.  If she genuinely thinks that the 'most interesting' thing about Esther McVey, Nicky Morgan, Penny Mordaunt, et al is their clothes, then that's her opinion - but I highly doubt she is in any way an enemy of women in politics.  What's remarkable is the muted response her comments received; with the exception of a few Conservative activists seeking to make hay over an opponent's blunder, I have seen very little said about this incident at all.

Imagine, if you will, what the reaction would've been to a male MP (of any party) Tweeting the same incendiary and derogatory remarks about female ministers - and then trying to pass it off as "aww, c'mon guys - it was just a joke!"  He would've been hauled over the coals.  Whether that would be the correct reaction to his comments is another matter - but he would certainly have been castigated for saying what Helen Goodman said.  Ms Goodman, on the other hand, seems to have got off fairly lightly.

The real sexism here is that people seem to be considerably less offended by Ms Goodman's Tweet than they would have been had it been posted by a male politician.  If particular comments are deemed sexist - and, therefore, unacceptable - it shouldn't matter who says them.  The equality movement are fighting the good fight for causes such as equal pay - but we won't truly achieve those goals until we have equal outrage too.

* When is criticism NOT heaped upon the Daily Mail?!

Halal can you go?

Following the news that popular sandwich shop Subway is going to stop serving pork across many of its UK outlets in response to 'demand' from Muslims for an 'all-Halal' menu, I'm left (as I so often am) wondering what all the fuss is about.

Naturally, this issue has sparked some considerable debate (including an online petition to stop the changes going through).  People are outraged.  Incensed.  How dare Subway do this?!

Well, Subway are a private company; it is their prerogative to serve - or not to serve - whichever foods they choose.  Personally, if I were in charge of making these decisions, I would not replace pork with Halal alternatives - I would serve Halal alternatives alongside non-Halal menu items, in an effort to cater to the widest range of customers possible.  However, whoever it is who is actually making the decisions has clearly chosen a different approach, and feels that this way of doing things is better.  Fair enough.

I've seen a lot of responses to this news story on social media from people who say they will no longer be spending their money in Subway shops, because they don't agree with this decision.  Again, that's fair enough - just as Subway can choose which foods to serve, their customers are free to choose not to go there if they don't like the items on offer on the new menu.

But don't paint yourself as some sort of revolutionary just because you're no longer popping into Subway in your lunch hour!  This is exactly how markets are supposed to work - if a company's product is not what you'd like, you don't buy from them.  You're not 'boycotting' Subway; you're not an activist changing the world, whose heroic deeds will be sung about in great banqueting halls in centuries to come; you're simply choosing where to buy a sandwich.

This issue has garnered the response that it has because it is to do with Islam - but what the headlines essentially boil down to is: "Sandwich shop changes menu; some people preferred it before."  Shocker.