From Gerry Adams to David Baddiel

FROM POLITICIAN TO FUNNY MAN?

Twenty years ago today I climbed the front steps of the offices where I worked, walked across the foyer and through the security doors into the lobby.  There to be faced with two photos of two different but similar people.  Underneath them a piece of paper which read "What's the difference between these two men?  Gerry isn't 40 today."

The picture on the left showed Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, with myself on the right.  And physically there was a close resemblance between us.  Much the same hairstyle, beard and glasses.  Now, two decades on, I have found myself being told, three times in the past couple of months, that I look very much like David Baddiel.  If you check out 2016 Gerry he still has much the same style he did back in the nineties, albeit much, much greyer.  So at least I've moved on.

I'm not sure if this tells me much.  It's not as if I have much else in common with these gentlemen.  Unlike Mr A I was no supporter of the "armed struggle", aka terrorism, but would agree with him the that creation of the so called Northern Ireland was a political error that has resulted in years and years of unnecessary problems.

Whilst the ostensible reason for partition was to reflect the interests of the Protestant majority in Ulster, the actual motivation was less moved by democratic sentiment and more an exercise in cynical realpolitik by the British Establishment.  The government of the day, and the Admiralty especially, had identified the Belfast Shipyards as a key strategic asset in maintaining The Empire.  Few now recognise the tragic irony whereby the iconic Harland and Wolff cranes have become little more than landmarks on the tourist trail, and the most populous remaining chunk of the once-global imperial reach is that selfsame chunk of the Emerald Isle.

There we are.  Maybe that's the connection between us - the ability to go off on political rants from the flimsiest of starting points!  But my Gerry lookalike days are long behind me and now it's David who's my man.  Politically he's a man I probably have even more in common with than the Irishman.  But, sadly, without the same level of funny bone or writing talent, and if I were to crack a joke about football it would more likely be acerbic than affectionate.

So I'll grasp what I can from the comparison.  Adams was, is, several years my senior, Baddiel the best part of a decade younger.  Which feels like an improvement.  Perhaps a stress free retirement has rejuvenating benefits?

Or maybe I've just got funnier?  I wish....

When you just don't know what's good for you

WHOOSH!  CAFFEINE ATTACK!

One of the greatest joys of being retired is knowing that you don't HAVE to get up in the morning, it's an entirely voluntary act, a provision we regularly take advantage of.  The only downside to this is when it really is necessary to get up sharp, but the old reflexes kick in when required. Well they do when the time to be met is still of the relatively civilised variety i.e. not before 7am.

So this morning's plan to be up at 4 to be out just after 5 was never going to be anything other than a battle against the forces of nature, especially after I woke about 2.30 and struggled to get off again....  But we did it, and were at the airport by 6.15.  A proud moment in an old fogey's struggles with life.  Not without some downsides though.

I was looking forward to the flight providing three hours of uninterrupted reading time.  Twas not to be.  The interuptees being my eyelids, which refused to cooperate with my desires and kept shutting down.  This makes reading difficult I find.  So I took a drastic step.

Me and caffeine don't have much of an intimate history.  Tea has always given me the boak.  Cola is an abomination, an evil plot to rot the bodily organs.  And coffee?  I quite like coffee, but it's taken to disliking me.  I was never a regular consumer anyway, but in the past couple of years I've found that one cup of coffee, even if taken mid morning, leads to me lying awake at two, three, four am....

But I wanted to read.  And coffee looked to be the answer.  One cup just before 9 was all it took.  I could read comfortably for the rest of the trip.  I was sharp and with it when it came to getting our stuff together, and moving from one pace to another.  I could walk for hours taking photos and absorbing the atmosphere.  But a strange feeling came upon me.  My mind felt awake, active, interested, but my body was developing other ideas.  Once again I have tired eyelids, but now paired with a brain that refuses to stop looking.

I'm writing this as 9.30pm approaches, intending to have lights out by 10.  By 10.30 I'll know if that one coffee was a big mistake or not.

A not-so-proud moment

THEY SHAME US ALL

I posted here a couple of weeks ago about an event that made me feel pride in my country.  But sometimes the flip side appears and there are moments when you can do naught but despair at the society you find yourself a part of.  At least this particular action came from a group I have no actual association with, nor would I want to, but they have the word Edinburgh in their title and that's close enough to tarnish us all.  Plus their stupidity has come at a cost to the local economy.

You'll have heard about the regressive decision taken by the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers at Muirfield.  It only took a couple of hundred neanderthals to keep the place stuck firmly in the past.  Yes, it's a private matter, but with the city's name in their title they tarnish us all, and being removed from list of courses which host The Open Championship has a financial impact on local businesses.

This is a country in which only one of the five parliamentary party leaders is a straight white male, where the governing cabinet has a fifty-fifty gender balance, and where equality and diversity are, mostly, taken seriously.  But a few dinosaurs can smear that reputation because they think that "The Ladies" wouldn't be able to fit in with their traditions.  Oh, and might interfere with their lunch arrangements.

I've got news for you guys.  "The Ladies" aren't the difficulty here.  If your traditions don't reflect the modern world then bring them up to date.  Otherwise you're the problem.

Doing good with soup (and cake)

THE SOUP OF HUMAN KINDNESS

Edinburgh Soup isn't a recipe, but a charity fund raising event.  Last night we went along to the fourth such occasion, although a first for us.  It's an unusual and intriguing format, based upon a idea which sprang up in Detroit, USA.  Get a bunch of people, businesses and music acts to donate their time/food/talent, charge people to attend, and have a form of competition which decides which of the charity projects there on the night will walk away with the takings from the door and other donations.

There was a good sized crowd in the converted church that is the Assembly Roxy, a great venue for music.  And a young crowd too (or perhaps just younger than I'm used to being a part of!).  Having booked a place online you paid at the door, found yourself a seat then joined the queue for some soup and bread.  A choice of two excellent concoctions from the Union of Genius on Forrest Road and chunks of wheaty enjoyment from the Wee Boulangerie on Clerk Street.  (Given their kindness in donating to feed so many mouths it would be churlish not to give them a plug.)  Later there would be cake, with four very different alternatives provided, from All About Patisserie who appear sell their wares at various market venues.  There was an honesty box by the cake, pay what you can afford kind of thing, but otherwise this was all covered in the entrance price.

And then there was the music.  First up was Sanna, a four piece pop outfit with fiddle, cello and clarinet.  The songs were uninspiring, but the singer had a decent voice, even if almost the only words he'd utter between numbers were "cheers folks".

Then there was the rapper Conscious Route.  My comfort zone seemed a long way off.  I have seen one rapper before, but that was delivered in Scots vernacular so there was something for me to link into.  But this was alien to anything I'm used to, and it's hard to make judgements when you have no real reference points.  Was he good at what he did?  I guess so.  Despite not having much of a clue about the content of his lyrics, I found myself enjoying the performance more as it went on, as the beat started to seep into my body and the rhythm of the singing style began to make more sense.  Plus this guy had a certain style about him, a stage presence which the previous band had totally lacked.  He was funny, informative and genuine communicator, passionate about what he was doing, and good to watch in action.  I doubt I'll be rushing to buy a CD, but if he crossed my path again I'd certainly give him a listen.

Finally the act that had brought us here in the first place.  The Jellyman's Daughter, who we last saw at this same venue, are a superb duo with a unique sound courtesy of Graham Coe's astonishing cello playing, while Emily Kelly's vocals sound even bluesier than before.  Great stuff.

In between those final two acts we had four five minute presentations, each from a representative of a local charity project, each of whom hoped to take away the proceeds from the evening to fund their work.  Each gave us an insight into what they did, who benefited, and what they needed the money for.  Then we, the audience, were asked to cast a vote for the one we considered most deserving.  The result was announced at the end of the night, with Garvald Edinburgh narrowly winning the ballot.  They help people with learning disabilities to repair equipment, much of which then ends up helping some of the poorest people in other countries.  The example given was of a guy in his twenties who repaired an old pedal operated sewing machine, which was then sent to a destitute woman in Malawi.  The Edinburgh man acquires a useful skill, and has the satisfaction of knowing that the outcome of his efforts goes to providing someone else with a better life.  The new owner of the sewing machine is able to support he family through her work, instead of having to beg.  It was the double benefit aspect of this project that won it my vote, but all of the the others were very worthy and extremely interesting as well.  I talked to the man from the Edinburgh Tool Library and now know where to take the excessive number of files and chisels and the like that seem to be sitting in various boxes.

Entertainment, good food, some educational moments and a sense of having been part of something worthwhile.  And all for a fiver.  I'll be looking out for the next Edinburgh Soup.

The drummers' heartbeat

DRUM ON

On Friday we went to the National Museum for one of their Museum Lates nights, this time associated with the Celts exhibition they have on.  Once in there was plenty to see and do, with various artistic endeavours on offer and a selection of Celtic themed groups wandering about and dancing.  But the big draw for the crowd was the main stage where, amongst others, Scots Indie band Idlewild were to play an acoustic set.

First up on stage (or rather, in front of it, for there looked to be too many of them to cram on) were the Beltane drummers, battering out a string of beats that fired up the crowd.  They were followed by the excellent folk duo Hannah Fisher and Sorren MacLean, then the headliners.  But the poor sound system, and high level of background noise, made a nonsense of any idea of this being a musical event (which is why I haven't bothered to attempt a review in my Go Live blog).

Until the finale.  Back on came the Beltane crowd and they have no need of sound systems.  Plus they come with their own means of drowning out all but the most persistent background sounds.

I thought they'd be on for about ten minutes at most, so I started videoing.  And kept going.  And going.  And going.  You can see the result below.  Seventeen minutes of joyous banging.

Sadly I only had my phone to hand so the visuals are pretty awful.  But the sound is just about good enough to give you something of a feel for the excitement these guys generated.  It's a cliche, I know, but there is genuinely something visceral about a performance of this nature.  There's no suggestion of civilisation, just a primeval urge linked to heartbeat, a direct connection to being alive.  It's hard to imagine any of the drummers suffering from much from stress because this must be one of the greatest outlets ever invented, not to mention the physical workout they must get.

Yes, you had to be there to receive the full impact of the vibrating air that launched itself at your eardrums, and it's far harder to get any sense of involvement when it's a crappy video played over speakers, but stay with it through the first few minutes and see what it does to your body.

You can see the video by clicking on this link.

What have you been told about the Scottish election England?

DEAR ENGLISH FRIENDS,

I wonder what you made of the general election results coming down from north of the border on Friday morning?  If you've been taking your news from the mainstream media, including, most shamefully, the BBC, you may have been left with two images - Dire Disaster for the SNP, Total Triumph for the Tories.  Is that how it's been portrayed to you?  If so, here's a few facts that might help paint a clearer picture.

But to begin with I best clear up a couple of potentially confusing points about the Scottish political scene.  Firstly, the voting system used for Holyrood.  We get to cast two votes.  The first, for the 73 single member constituencies, uses the identical system to that employed to elect Westminster MPs.  The remainder of the 129 MSPs are elected through eight regions using a list system.  In the first vote you go for the person, in the second it's the party.

Calculating the regional results involves some complicated arithmetic using the D'Hondt method.  I'm not going to try and explain it in detail, check the above link if you want to know more.  But the primary consequence is that the more successful a party is in winning constituency seats, the less it's chance of taking seats in the regions.  This system was chosen for two reasons.  It gives minority parties (which, at the time, included the SNP) a greater chance of representation than the hugely unfair Westminster system.  And secondly, it makes it highly improbable that any single party could win an overall majority in parliament.  This 'safeguard' was included just in case the SNP increased their support to the point where they might become the government, thus, supposedly, avoiding the possibility of there ever being a majority of the parliament in favour of independence.

And if you think that sounds a bit paranoid have a look at this clip of Malcolm Bruce saying exactly that at Westminster.

Which brings me to my second 'need to know' point.  This constitutional arrangement assumed that there would only ever be the one pro-independence party, the SNP.  But that was before Indyref and the rise of the popular Yes Movement.  In 2016 we had at least three other pro-indy parties in the election.  So don't make the common error of assuming that the SNP and the Yes Movement are the same thing.  (An easy mistake to make of course, even the SNP seem to be guilty of it at times....)  There are Yes voters, like myself, who do not consider themselves to be nationalists.  Equally there have been many people voting SNP in past two years who are yet to be convinced of the merits of full separation, but now see the Nats as the natural party of the centre left in Scottish politics.

In 2011 the SNP broke the system.  They got that absolute majority they were never intended to get.  But that only came on the back of the perfect storm, having few enough consituency wins for them to have some success in the regions.  The result gave them 53 constituency MSPs and13 from the regions, a total well clear of the 65 needed for outright majority.  This time round they were actually more successful - and suffered for it as the system did what it was designed to do.  59 constituencies returned an SNP candidate, so in five of the regions there wasn't really a cat in hell's chance of them getting any list MSPs, despite having a substantially larger number of votes than other parties.  The results from the Glasgow region show what I mean.

Overall the SNP increased the number of votes they received nationally, and polled about 46% in the constituency vote, 42% in the regions.  In the end they were just a few hundred votes short of getting the two extra seats needed for the magic 65.  But that had never seemed likely in the first place.  This was an administration chasing it's third term in office after all.

The SNP are, once again, to form the government.  They remain by far the most popular party in the country, but will now have to adopt a more consensual style, seeking agreement from at least one other party each time they want to legislate.  This sounds like a positive to me.  And it certainly doesn't sound like any kind of disaster.

As for that Tory triumph....  They took 22.0% of the constituency vote.  Marginally behind, yes behind, the 22.6% Labour got.  They did do better in the regions, but still only just made it to 23% (with Labour on 19%, not all that far behind).  In seat numbers the Conservatives won that battle 31 to 24, but the underlying figures show the real difference to be far less than that.  And both parties put together fall well behind the SNP's totals, whether measured in votes or seats.  Some triumph.

Looking back over recent decades, in Westminster elections the Tories have usually polled at around 15%, always under the 20 mark.  In the previous Holyrood election, in 2011, they were barely scraping the 14%.  So 22% does represent a substantial increase.  But it hasn't been at the expense of the SNP.  Instead this increase has more to do with Labour passing them - going the wrong way.  And here it's worth looking at the Tory campaign.

There were two key elements.  The first was to try and pretend not to be Tory.  Much of their campaign literature seems to have avoided much use of the word 'Conservative'.  In it's stead we were being asked to elect Ruth Davidson of the Ruth Davidson party.  No matter what the media might like to tell you, 'Conservative' remains a toxic word with much of the Scottish electorate.

Secondly, it was Wee Ruthie : Tank Commander (sorry, I know most of you won't get the joke, but it still makes me laugh) who wanted to make independence, and the possibility of a second Indyref, an issue in this election.  Backed up of course, by her chums at the BBC et al.  No matter how many times Sturgeon repeated that there were no plans to push for one, and that there would have to be a material change in circumstances for that to happen, Davidson wanted it to be the defining issue.

And it worked, to an extent.  It needn't have been the case, but the faultline in Scotland's political landscape is the fracture between Yes and No.  What's interesting is how that split appears to be aligning itself, more and more, with the traditional fissure between left and right.  Being pro-UK becomes ever more a right wing choice, and vice versa.  The Tories have made themselves the de facto party of No.  Not for nothing are they The Conservative and Unionist party.

But here's the thing.  There is a hard core of Scottish unionist voters who believe that remaining a part of the UK is essential to Scotland's future.  They are never, ever, going to vote SNP.  Or, probably, for any other pro-indy party.  I'd imagine that includes pretty much all of the people who voted Tory, and a percentage of those for Labour and the LibDems (remember them?).  That figure looks to be somewhere around the 30% mark.

On the other hand, there's a hard core of Nationalists who will vote Yes whatever the circumstances, and have a tribal allegiance to the SNP.  That one's harder to calculate, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that's about 30% as well.  (Personally I suspect it's higher, but that might just be my confirmation bias....)

And in the middle.... those who could fall either way, depending on events.

That looks to place a limit on the Tory 'comeback'.  They could still grow their vote, maybe get somewhere around that 30%, but it's hard to imagine, in the medium term, the seismic shift needed to see them in government here.  Especially when the Cameron regime is proving itself to be worse than even those of Thatcher.

Meanwhile the SNP are still sitting pretty.  They only need one party to support them at any one time and they have a majority.  Their most natural ally would appear to be the Greens (and I really, really, really hope they work closely with Andy Wightman on land reform!), but that won't work every time.  Personally I'd have liked to see an SNP/Green coalition, adding some much needed radicalism to Nat caution, but with only two votes needed each time I can see why that's not an option.

The one party they must not work with is Wee Ruthie's.  Not that I think she would.  The Tory leader is defining herself as the anti-Nicola, and has no place to go beyond that.  When the SNP worked with the Tories in 2007 it was through pragmatism, and predates both the arrival of Cameron and Indyref.  The latter changed the Scottish scene dramatically.  Working with Tories would be hugely damaging to Nicola - and vice versa.

That leaves two parties.  If I was Willie Rennie I'd be pimping my team at the government, offering to be of help in passing various bits of legislation.  It looks to be the once chance the LibDems have of gaining some relevance outside of their heartlands and rehabilitating them as a serious player.

The biggest question though is - Whither Labour?  Not so long ago the dominant force in the country, they are now the third party and in disarray.  They came up with some decent policies, not least on tax, but it all felt a bit half hearted.  There were even some noises about having second thoughts on Trident and maybe allowing a free vote on independence.  If Kezia had declared for Corbyn there might have been a chance, but it all came across as a bit too Blairite, and that's part of their problem.  It's a bit too close to Tory.

So they are going to have to decide which way to turn.  Work with Ruthie, thus perpetuating the 'Red Tories' label, to oppose the government?

Or look to cooperate with Bute House on progressive legislation, aiming to get back some of that centre left ground?  And, in the process, maybe acknowledging formally that there are still some Labour supporters who might well be considering independence as the best option.

This isn't an easy choice, with hatred of both Tories and the SNP being visceral within sections of the party.  Plus there's the bigger problem - it isn't necessarily their choice to make.  Previous leader Johann Lamont complained that her London masters treated Scottish Labour like a "branch office".  That might be fine for the Tories, their raison d'être even, but for Labour, and to a lesser extent the LibDems, it's becoming a drag anchor.  Will Corbyn and co have the sense to give Kez the freedom required?

Of course I write all this from my own biased standpoint.  I voted SNP/Green (for reasons I outlined in an earlier post) and am, overall, pleased with the outcome of the election.  There is still a pro-Indy majority of MSPs (I bet your English media forgot to mention that bit) and the SNP's more extreme tendencies will be curbed.  There's an outside chance we may see some more radical policies implemented than appeared in the SNP's rather managerial manifesto.

And that's important, to people like me, if the case for independence is ever to be made successfully.  With the new powers available to them, the government need to demonstrate why Scotland can be not just different, but better than the UK.  Green influence on environmental policy will be crucial in this.  Meanwhile the leader of the opposition is going to have to keep defending the cruelty and incompetence of Cameron's cronies, a brush she may regret being tarred with.  Plus we have this daft EU referendum to come, the fallout from which is uncertain.

The Daily Fail and their ilk seem to think that Friday's results have made Indy less likely.  I wouldn't be so sure about that.....

Regards,

Blyth

(If this has helped you get a clearer picture of what's going on up here please share it with your friends.  We're getting a bit fed up with being misrepresented!)

Be proud Scotland

PROUD OF MY COUNTRY

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

I know, I know, quotes shorn of their context have little value, and Johnson didn't actually mean what that brief sentence conveys when employed as a generalisation.  Nonetheless I'm sticking with it as a useful introductory peg on which to hang this post.

I don't trust patriots.  I don't trust anyone who says they are proud of their country without providing any specific reason for doing so.  I don't trust anyone who regurgitates the mantra, 'my country, right or wrong'.  That's an abdication of responsibility, a mindless refusal to exercise the critical faculties.  How can anyone be 'proud' of taking part in illegal wars, or implementing policies that kill disabled people?  Unthinking loyalty should have no place in a civilised society.

But sometimes your country, collectively, does do something you can feel pride in being a part of.  And one such moment occurred this morning.

Everyone will have had some aspect of the general election results that they are unhappy about.  Whether it's the SNP failure to get an absolute majority, Labour bemoaning the loss of so many seats, or the frustration of the Greens in not getting to the double figures some polls predicted.  But there was one element of the results that (almost) the whole country can get behind and feel proud of.

Despite all their loud mouthed predictions to the contrary, ukip didn't come close to winning a single seat at Holyrood.  The Scots have not fallen prey to the politics of fear, hatred and bigotry promoted by those far right numpties, the toxicity that has so badly infected the politics and social fabric of England.  We have to continue to guard against it, but for now this brand of extremism is a non starter in the nation.  And why shouldn't we all be proud of that?

But Wales - what have you done?  Neil the fraudster Hamilton?  Really??  Be ashamed, Wales, feel very ashamed.

Choices, choices - the General Election looms

JUST A FEW DAYS TO GO

The SNP is massively flawed, both as a party and as a government.  There are times when their instinct to centralise and control, as evidenced in the creation of Police Scotland or the much derided 'guardian for every child' policy, is disturbingly reminiscent of some of the worst aspects of the later years of the New Labour governments at Westminster.  With new powers coming to Holyrood this was an opportunity for the party to show off its progressive credentials, but the response to this in their manifesto is timid at best, especially on tax.  They have become a managerial government, largely competent, but lacking flair or imagination.

And yet.  All the polls are indicating that the government will be returned with an increased majority, backing up their huge success last year when they won all but three of Scotland's seats in London, with just over 50% of the votes cast - a far, far stronger mandate than that 'won' by the Tories.  The party itself attracts massive popular support, with membership greatly outstripping that of any other party (indeed they are the third largest in the UK, and by some margin), and there is a fanatical element (often the so-called 'cybernats') that can become overly aggressive at times.  Why is a party, which on paper should be struggling to keep the bandwagon rolling, looking such a dead cert to continue?  And can I find any reason to vote for them?

I have almost always voted tactically.  Having lived most of my adult life in England I found myself living in constituencies where I felt it my public duty to put my X in the spot where it was most likely to prevent a Conservative winning the seat.  And often that's the thing about democracy, you can find yourself voting not for the party that best reflects your views, but the least worst option available.  It's not the party you're voting for, but voting against the less palatable choices.

So what are the choices in this general election?  What are my choices?  As I've already stated, I have no truck with the Torykip world view.  Greed and selfishness are not a basis for public policy, and the Scottish Conservatives have shown no convincing signs of distancing themselves from the disastrous Cameron regime.  Any party whose policies kill disabled people is not getting my vote.

Oh, and ukip are ever more of a joke in this country.  Led by the buffoon who is a national embarrassment (how did anyone think Coburn would be a suitable representative for Scotland in Brussels?) and apparently having their own little civil war in the last few days of electioneering, they play to the worst aspects of the human psyche.  May they all rot.

Then there's Labour.  No longer able to count upon the loyalty of thousands no matter how incompetent, they are suddenly struggling to hang on to their position as second party.  Which is a shame.  Unlike the SNP they are proposing to do something a bit more radical with the new tax powers, and are making some noises about opposing Trident.  Plus they have taken a stronger stance than the government against any fracking taking place in the country.  All three policies feature on my personal list of things I'd like to see.

But I have two problems with Scottish Labour at the moment (apart from them just not being Corbynite enough for my taste).  Locally their choice of candidate in my constituency is a huge negative.  The popular, and effective, incumbent MSP is retiring, his replacement an establishment figure who has been prominent in many of Edinburgh Council's greatest failures (and there have been a few).  Nationally, much as Dugdale appears to be a very nice and very genuine person, she does little to impart confidence.  She does not make for a convincing potential First Minister.

There's an irony here.  Wee Ruthie does demonstrate some of the leadership qualities Kezia lacks - but her polices are, well, shite.  But if the Tories did become the second party it might actually be no bad thing.  Scotland needs an effective leader of the opposition, something sadly lacking in recent years.

Then there's the LibDems.  Remember them?  If Kezia appears to be a weak leader, what can you say about Willie Rennie?  Is it even worth bothering?

That just leaves the Greens, and a few minority parties.  In the constituency vote none of them really has much chance of winning, certainly not in this area.  But at regional level it's a different matter.

For all that RISE have some very attractive ideas, I feel at the moment that the Scottish Greens best represent my own views.  Strong on the environment, radical on tax and with an attitude to independence that matches my pragmatism.  I'm a Yes voter, but not a nationalist by instinct.  And in Patrick Harvie they have the most effective leading politician in the country, someone I have great respect for.

In an ideal world I'd like to see a SNP/Green coalition in power, with Patrick and co giving Nicola's cabinet the progressive kick they need.  That seems an unlikely outcome, but a strong Green presence in Holyrood would be to Scotland's benefit.  I'll be voting SNP in the constituency, even if I have to hold my nose a bit to do so.  But my list votes goes to the Greens, and that one comes with conviction.