I've Just Got Off The Phone After a Conference Call With the Office of the DPM

[miss_s_b]

... which started politely, quickly degenerated into everybody shouting at each other, and ended up with everybody sounding very subdued.

The Spads did start by trying to defend the proposal; by the end of the conversation, once many many people had explained the technical, logistical, political and financial problems with the proposal, along with the objections on principle, they were saying "well if you're right about what this entails, we won't wear it". And I'm afraid that when one of the them used the phrase "terrorists and paedophiles" in an attempt at justifying this intrusion into everybody's life the F-word rose unbidden to my lips and I didn't manage to stop it coming out. Hopefully enough other people were shouting at that point that it didn't offend too many folk...

I'm not much mollified; I have some reassurance that we've got through to the leadership (or at least, the leadership's minions) this time, but I still don't think they get what the problem is and why everybody is so upset, and I have no confidence whatsoever that this won't happen again... But I think they want to know what the problem is and how to stop this happening again. I don't feel ignored any more. One of the Spads in particular seemed very keen to keep on engaging. So some progress, but I don't know if it's enough progress.

One thing I do feel confident of: the soul of this party is very much alive in people like Jenny Jones and Alex Wilcock and Zoe O'Connell and Richard Flowers and a whole bunch of Marks, all of whom did a lot better than I did at remaining calm and making cogent points and not swearing.

Comments

[miss_s_b]

Oh, I don't object to swearing in general. I've been told to fuck off by a baroness! It's just when you're trying to appear calm and rational and reasonable it tends to put a crimp in that.

[gwenhwyfaer]

Sometimes anger is the rational response. I can't help but wonder whether the dismissal of anger as "irrational" is directly linked to the dismissal of principles as "unrealistic". (Unless those principles involve letting the powerful keep all their power and have a little more too, of course.)

[miss_s_b]

Oh, I agree completely. But when those people are the ones you are trying to convince, it's best to play by thier rules.

[(Anonymous)]

I did a post on just that today. "Calm = correct" is certainly an unfortunate assumption, but it seems to be ingrained into the contemporary outlook fairly thoroughly.

(plug plug http://lower-than-vermin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/what-is-this-feeling.html )

As for the OP: I'll be very interested indeed to see how this develops. Glad (if not surprised) to see you sticking up for your principles.

[miss_s_b]

Thanks anony mouse :)

[(Anonymous)]

Squeak squeak, you're welcome!

And all jesting aside, you're most welcome commenting on my blog. :)

[gwenhwyfaer]

It's not just "calm = correct"; the corollary, "angry = arsehole", is even more deeply ingrained, and frankly poisonous. Without anger, politics is a parlour game played by disinterested - and increasingly uninterested - powerlusters for stakes they will never have to pay themselves.

[ginasketch]

Anger in women is especially frowned upon.