John Hustings: Political Correctness is the real problem

John Hustings is a regular visitor to ConservativeHome.

"The Pope made a big mistake, didn't he?" This was Gavin Esler's opening question to a panel of journalists on BBC NEWS 24's 'DateLine London' this week. It is one of many examples of one-sideness in the media coverage of the "Pope crisis". It is especially true when you read the full text of the Pope's speech (see link), which is actually rather mild and not at all how the media have presented it. I wonder how many of the commentariat so enthusiastically condemning the Pope for his indelicacy have bothered to read his speech and observe the extent to which he has been misrepresented.

Inevitably, whenever Islam enters the news as it did this week, discussion seems to centre around two things: how persecuted Muslims feel, due to foreign policy, media demonisation, public hostility and so on; and whether Islam is or is not a violent religion. I am writing this article to argue that the whole focus of such discussion has been misplaced, and that it would be more productive to view the whole issue from a different persepective. 

We keep being told that we must understand Islam. There are many critics of Islam who tell us we must understand that it is an aggressive violent religion, and we should read the Koran to discover that. Similarly, there are those (including Islamic clergy) who insist that Islam is a religion of peace and we should read the Koran to discover that. I have no time to read the Koran, and do not feel predisposed to do so. Moreover, I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should have to. But besides that, I really don't see how it would help with matters. I have some experience with Christian theology and am aware of the way in which discussion can get easily locked into fixedly opposing sides, which never come to any agreement, and so can easily become a maze for the uninitiated to get lost within. This is a situation that seems to me exactly what radical Islamists would most want. 

John Hustings: Defining the centre ground

John Hustings is a regular visitor to ConservativeHome.

It's the issues, not the policies, that matter

There is a lot of muddled thinking regarding the concept of a "centre ground" in politics. Virtually everyone accepts that it is desirable to be positioned on the centre -- or more importantly, to be perceived as on the centre -- but few have any real understanding about what it means. We have the general sense that it is advantageous because it allows us to present ourselves as reasonable and moderate, in contrast to our opponents, who will be perceived by the public as extreme or even dangerous. It is a natural, understandable instinct for people to feel safer in trusting those they consider to be part of the mainstream.

We also know that, as Conservatives, we haven't been very good at presenting ourselves as centrists. Even if our views on issues resonate with the public, we still manage to find ourselves pigeonholed as far to the right -- and out of the mainstream -- in contrast to the warm, cuddly and caring Lib Dems (who advocate such "mainstream" policies as extending the vote to prisoners).

There is also the dilemma that while the public want their political leaders to be generally mainstream, they also want them to be able to make tough, difficult decisions (one of Mrs Thatcher's chief attractions was that she was seen as a woman who "gets things done"). Taking a "mid-point centre" position on every issue would be politically disastrous; there are many issues over which it is absolutely necessary to take a firm stand one way or the other: I don't know what the mid-point centre position on ID Cards would be, for example, but it doesn't seem to me desirable to advocate it.