Passing the Buckfast OR fast buckpassing?

So once again, the unusual tonic wine is in the news here.  I resisted blogging about it a couple of weeks ago, when it was reported as being linked to 5,000 crimes over a three year period.  Now Scottish Labour has launched their own commission on alcohol and are calling for the amount of caffeine in Buckfast to be reduced.  Maybe they've got a point - but it's a minor issue.  

When you consider the extent of the problem that this country has with alcohol misuse, the use of Buckfast is all but irrelevant.  Still it gives the politicos in oor wee Parliament something else to disagree about.  Labour won't play with the SNP minimum pricing proposals, the SNP won't play with Labour's Buckfast proposals.  I've heard a lot of arguments about these two issues over the weekend, but I haven't heard anything about the root cause of the problem.  Nor have I heard any talk about working together in a consensual (call it adult) way to deal with this issue.  You see that doesn't make good headlines, doesn't show how different we are from each other, how much more impressive my argument is than yours.

It's the politics of the playground; while alcohol continues to blight lives up and down the land.  It drives me mad.

Pass the Buckfast - I need a drink!

The politics of Scrooge

Sometimes I wonder if politicians in this country (and probably everywhere) go out of their way to look foolish.  Today's nonsense in Scotland is about Christmas cards - particularly the design chosen for the First Minister's card.  The image offends political opponents because the saltire is deemed to be a symbol of nationalism... well, it is our national flag.  Doh!

Would I have chosen this card?  No.

Is it worth a political stooshie?  No.

Will our politicians ever grow up?  I'll leave that for you to decide.

Where did the summer go?

That’s not a question about the weather – specifically the absence of the forecast “barbecue summer”. Rather, it’s a recognition that this summer has flown past, without too many blog entries from me. Over the next few days I’ll pick out a few highlights.

We spent a week in London in July, which was great.

One of the most memorable things that we did was to visit the Houses of Parliament. We didn’t follow the usual tourist route, but had arranged in advance with our local M.P. for a tour with a member of his staff. This had two advantages.

Firstly, we were able to access areas that would be off limits to routine tourists – thanks to her staff pass.

Secondly, and far more importantly, we were able to get a first hand insight into working in Parliament. The young woman who showed us around was enthusiastic, informative and engaging. She managed to connect with each of us (probably not too easy), and left us feeling a bit more positively disposed towards our tarnished home of government.

I wonder if I’d give a similar impression to people visiting my place of work?

Even if you can’t get the same sort of tour that we did, the Houses of Parliament are well worth the visit.

Difficult decisions, justice and compassion

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has decided to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi (the Libyan who was convicted for the Lockerbie bombing) on compassionate grounds. I don’t envy MacAskill – this was surely a difficult decision for him to make. He has been condemned for releasing Megrahi; I am sure that he would have been criticised if he had decided not to release him.

What are we to make of this situation?

Firstly, we must remember that Megrahi remains guilty of the crime. He has had two unsuccessful appeal cases heard, and he withdrew his latest appeal.

Some objectors have stated that this decision means that the victims’ families can’t have closure. While I understand that this decision must be difficult, since it brings painful memories back to the surface, I don’t see how it affects individual closure. Megrahi is still guilty, he is dying. Would keeping him in prison really help?

I find the statements from Hillary Clinton (“absolutely wrong”) and Barack Obama (“ a mistake”) unhelpful. In my view, there are no absolutes here.

It’s difficult, but I tend to agree with MacAskill when he said:

"Our justice system demands that judgement be imposed, but compassion be available.”

I’m glad that our justice system has the scope to be compassionate, and on balance I’d rather that we made ‘mistakes’ through being compassionate, than through being vengeful.

Does anyone recognise this man?

I came across this video from TED last night (it runs for about 16 minutes).  I almost didn't watch it, given my feelings about politics in this country at the moment.  However, I'm glad that I did.

While I recognise that the speech and appearance was no doubt carefully scripted/choreographed (although someone needs to teach him how to knot his tie!), there is a confidence and vitality about his delivery.  This got me thinking... if the difference is that Gordon Brown is speaking authentically about something that his is passionate about, why don't we see this side of him more often?

But also, for the rest of us, how much vitality do we bring to our day-to-day work, and how much more do we bring to the tasks that excite and inspire us?  And, what can I do as a manager to help staff bring their "A" game to the for?

In the meantime, can we please see more of this side of our undoubtedly talented but flawed PM please?

I am part of they

Child protection services in Dundee have just received a fairly damning inspection report, against a backdrop of a recent high profile case of a child dying at the hands of his mother's drug using partner. I'm not going to comment on any of the details.

However, I was intrigued by the response from a long standing councillor. Rather than simply saying, "It wisnae me!", he expressed a more balanced view. He looked at himself and accepted his share of responsibility. Effectively, he was saying "I am part of they". You can find the newspaper story here, but I particularly liked - and respected - the following comments:

“I’m an elected member with 46 years’ standing. In all that time I have never had such a damning report put before me.

“I’m duty-bound to ask, what was my role in this?

“I feel more than a little ashamed as a member of the authority when this report is before us.

“Where did the failure occur? Were we alerted early enough?

I wish that more of our politicians were like this - sadly very few of them are.

Making sense of election results

... I can't (make sense of election results that is!)

We voted in the European Parliamentary Elections on Thursday, with the results announced today. Well, I say we voted - actually less than 30% of the electorate voted in Scotland. I should know better, but I still find this shocking. The turnout in elections here is dismal, with the European elections typically very low. Why do people choose not to vote?

Equally shocking is the election of two MEPs from the British National Party. I find their far-right policies repugnant, and their tactics dubious. I feel offended and embarrased that they were elected from my country. Yet, if people turn out to vote for them, can I really complain?

I can't have it both ways.

So will this shock people into casting their votes the next time around, to ensure that dodgy fringe parties are not elected - I doubt it very much. And maybe that's the greatest tragedy of all, that we seem to no longer care who represents us.

I can't make any sense of that!

What do I mean by prophetic?

In response to yesterday's entry That Hideous Man asked exactly what I meant by prophetic. It's a good question, and I thought that rather than post a long, rambling comment in response, I'd post a long, rambling entry in response.

I suppose that what I had in mind was John Stott's 'double listening':

"... we are to listen carefully (although of course with differing degrees of respect) both to the ancient Word and to the modern world, in order to relate the one to the other with a combination of fidelity and sensitivity... It is my firm conviction that, only if we can develop our capacity for double listening, will we avoid the opposite pitfalls of unfaithfulness and irrelevance, and be able to speak God's word to God's world with effectiveness today."

(emphasis mine)

The Tearfund prayer diary for this week talks about keeping 'one eye on the newspaper and another on the Bible'.

But to be prophetic we have to go beyond an awareness of the issues to a position where we speak out about them and challenge others to think about them too. We may propose a course of action, or we may simply indicate that we are prepared to join in a dialogue about the issues. In many ways, I think it's more about raising the right questions rather than having all the answers.

Other factors that are relevant to the prophetic role include the willingness to:

• speak for those who have no voice (or, at least, their voice isn't listened to);
• provide an honest critique of the issue in the light of God's teaching and love for us;
• set the agenda proactively, rather than simply responding to the prompting of others;
• combine a concern for justice with a call for responsibility and accountability;
• follow through to service as appropriate.

To use a phrase that I first heard from Stuart Blyth - it's also about being relevant not trendy.

Those are my thoughts, I'd love to hear what others think!

Where is the prophetic voice of the church?

Another child’s death filled our headlines for a day or two this week. This time it was Brandon Muir from Dundee – killed by his mother’s drug-using boyfriend. As he was dying from his injuries, his mother was prostituting herself to fund her drug habit.

The details of the story fill me with horror and rage. If you have the stomach for it you can read more on the BBC website or in The Herald.

For once, our politicians seem to have responded to this tragedy in a mature way. Dare we hope that they’ve learned that something needs to change in our society?

Annabel Goldie talked about the “tragic exposure of Scotland’s broken society.”

Adam Ingram, the Minister for Children, said:

“We need to … break a vicious cycle of poverty, deprivation, substance misuse which is all too evident in our society.”

And:

“You’re never going to get a 100% fool-proof system and that’s why we have to tackle the root causes of the problems, not just the symptoms.”

Researchers have estimated that between 40,000 and 50,000 children in Scotland live with at least one drug-addicted parent. (That doesn’t take account of those living with parents who misuse alcohol – and there’s not exactly a shortage of them in Scotland!)

And the churches said… NOTHING! At least, I haven’t heard or read anything from any of the churches.

This seems to epitomise what I referred to in my entry on the U2 lyrics. Is there a more important social issue in Scotland right now?

What are the root causes that Adam Ingram was talking about? Poverty, deprivation, community responsibility, hope for the hopeless - amongst others?

Who - in the churches - is doing the thinking?

How do we get a conversation going about this?

Where should we be raising a prophetic voice?

How should we be demonstrating Christ’s love?

I genuinely don’t know the answers to any of these questions, bit I am convinced that if the church is to be relevant, we must tackle this type of issue - sensitively, openly, courageously and biblically.

“We do, of course, need to be wise in deciding what we should get ‘prophetic’ about, and how to pitch it… well-informed and courageous challenges to values that are inimical to the gospel and damaging to our society, will strike a chord in many people’s heart.

And we must show, by word and by life, that there is – however unfashionable – a different and better way.”

- Helen Parry (LICC)

The price and the promise of citizenship

What to make of Obama's inauguration speech?

I listened to it live as I drove home from work yesterday. A few phrases stuck with me, but I got the impression that he was holding back, toning down the oratory. It was good, but not necessarily great.

Tonight I watched it and took notes (as a cloudscape) and the themes became clearer. He was holding back, there was a seriousness in his demeanour to match the mood of the times. But his speech was loaded with social justice and historical references; it was determined and forward-looking; positive and realistic. For me, the common refrains throughout the speech were 'enduring' and 'extending'.

It may not be the greatest speech in history, or the greatest inauguration speech from a President, or even the greatest speech from Obama, but there was a forceful honesty about it that I admire greatly.

I need to read it now to get another view of it, but for now - it wasn't what I was expecting, but it was a pleasant and challenging surprise.

Anticipation

Is Barack Obama's inauguration speech the most anticipated speech in history? Well, I certainly can’t remember anything quite like it.

Which raises another question – why is there so much anticipation?

A few thoughts from me:

• He’s an excellent orator, who seems to connect with people whenever he speaks;
• He conveys a sense of passion and belief in what he says;
• He inspires hope through the vision that he communicates; and
• Most of us are expecting him to change things – in a positive way.

Is it fair to place so much of our collective aspirations on one man? Probably not. But with exceptionally high approval ratings – and inevitable comparisons to his predecessor – Barack Obama has a large burden to carry.

Of course, there are many waiting for him to fail, or to fall, but I hope that he can maintain his clarity of vision, purpose and communication. I was heartened by Andrew Rawnsley writing in yesterday’s Observer:

“Better the audacity of hope than the timidity of cynicism.”

I’m looking forward to the speech tomorrow (which may be a bit sad!), but I’m also looking forward to see how Obama deals with the job. I hope he emerges from the presidency as fresh and as vibrant as he enters it.

Barack Obama: My part in his success

(Title inspired by Spike Milligan)

No, I didn’t play any role in his election victory. But – for me – that’s not his success. His success will be measured by the way in which he tackles the issues that he talked about during his campaign; by the way that he works collaboratively with other leaders (political and otherwise); by the way he builds on the goodwill that he currently seems to enjoy; and by the way that he creates hope and makes a difference in individual lives.

Why should this matter to me, living in Scotland? Well, in these turbulent times – geopolitically and economically – the impact of the United States will be felt across the world. In my opinion, that impact wasn’t a positive force during the Bush years. Obama needs to change that.

I was catching up on e-mails today, and I came across this article from LICC. It’s a useful reminder that we all have a role to play in the success, or otherwise, of Obama’s presidency. We can all pray.

Also, we should be willing to hold him to account, and since he used the Internet to good effect during his campaign, we can use it to make sure that he is doing what he said he would through our use of cyberspace. As Hillary Clinton said recently:

“I want to do everything I can to make sure his agenda is successful.”

We can all do that. And while I’m at it, I shouldn’t forget Messrs. Brown and Salmond (tempting though it is!)

Politics - U.S. style

While we were in Boston we saw the second presidential debate. Not “Joe the Plumber”, but the “THAT ONE” one. It was inevitably hard to avoid with TV news reports, commentaries and adverts providing some interest to the casual spectator (i.e. me).

This linked with one of my Boston highlights – visiting the John F Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. It’s really worth a visit if you’re in Boston (although I thought the stuff on the Cuban missile crisis was a wee bit short and lightweight – but I’m probably being picky!)

Two aspects of the museum triggered thoughts about the similarities and differences with the current campaign.

The stunning similarity for me was the exhibit that showed excerpts from the very first televised presidential debate – between JFK and Richard Nixon. One was eloquent, photogenic, energetic, calm, composed, thoughtful and talked a lot about vision and the need for change; the other was quite brusque, awkward, reactive, direct in responses and talked a lot about experience. Sound familiar?

The difference – for me – was the issue of religion. In his speech accepting the Democratic party nomination JFK emphasised that he did not want his religion to be an issue in the election, he wanted to be judged on his policies alone. This time around there has been much talk of religion – especially that of Barack Obama. The fact that religion is an issue still comes as a surprise to me, given that it’s not a big factor in elections over here.

I heard someone recently suggesting that the emergence of faith in U.S. elections was a reaction to Watergate (Nixon again!) and the need for the population to be re-assured about the moral integrity of their potential President. However, I am concerned (as an ill-informed onlooker) that the test of authenticity as a Christian is largely based on the issue of abortion and to some extent homosexuality. Why highlight these two? Why not use the attitude towards poverty and injustice, which would be more biblical?

Anyway, it’s intriguing that Obama has been keen to talk about and expand on his religious views. Of course, there are issues relating to his family background that mean he has to establish his own position – to some extent. But I admire the way that he has not chosen to give the ‘correct’ answers to the questions that he’s been asked. He seems to have remained true to his beliefs and principles, even when he knows that he will get a negative reaction (as at the Saddleback event).

I will watch with interest to see the outcome on November 4th.

Taxation and accountability

This is a real thrupenny thought!

The SNP government in Scotland has published its proposed legislative programme for the parliamentary session, including plans for a “Local” Income Tax to replace the current Council Tax system.

As I understand it, the proposal is to abolish the Council Tax, which is a property based tax set and collected separately by each of the 32 local authorities in Scotland. (By the way, the thrupenny bit comes in because it’s likely that the proposals would add 3pence to the existing Income Tax rate.)

Now I need to declare a pecuniary interest in this. First of all, I work in local government; secondly I’ll be a ‘loser’ financially if the SNP proposals ever make it to the statute books.

Predictably there’s been a party political stooshie about this with all sides adopting their familiar, entrenched positions. But I want to spend a few moments thinking through some of the underpinning issues as I see it.

All parties in Scotland seem to agree that the existing Council Tax regime is unfair. So what constitutes a fair system of taxation? Ideally it should reflect consumption of the end product and to some extent reflect ability to pay.

Neither the Council Tax nor any form of ‘local’ income tax will reflect consumption, and any attempt to measure the use of local government services by each citizen/ family would be so hideously complex and contentious that it would be completely unworkable. Income tax does come closer to measuring ability to pay.

What else do we need to consider?

Cost of collection is surely an issue. To collect Council Tax, each local authority needs to have staff and systems to notify citizens of the amount that they are each due to pay, collect these amounts through a variety of methods, and chase those who choose not to pay. There is a also a system for assessing individual relief from payment due to individual financial circumstances. On the other hand, it is argued that Revenues and Customs already collect money from all income tax payers, so varying the percentage to be collected from me shouldn’t be too difficult. It is clearly more straightforward to collect if the rate is set nationally, as opposed to separate rates for each authority.

Of course the big, philosophical show-stopper is about accountability – so the opposition parties say. The argument runs that each Council must be accountable to their citizens for the amount of money collected from taxation to run their services. There is a certain logic to this position – except that Council Tax currently represents less than 20% of the money spent by each local authority. The rest of the money comes through direct charging for services (e.g. use of leisure facilities, payments for social care), business rates AND funding from central government – which in turn comes from INCOME TAX (and other nationally set taxes).

Do citizens judge their democratically elected representatives solely - or mainly - on the basis of how much tax they pay? What view do they take of outcomes and the quality of services delivered? What about ensuring that services are provided to the most vulnerable?

And what about the fact that turnout in local government elections is laughably low and likely to decrease if/when they are de-coupled from Scottish Parliament elections?

In my opinion, if the issue is about fairness then ‘local’ Income Tax wins the argument. This is also true in terms of the cost of collection.
As for accountability – well there’s a real debate around that, if only the politicians were capable or willing to look at it from the citizens’ perspective rather than a party political one. But is there any prospect of a mature debate on this? Not a chance!!

Chances and choices

“Where you live should not decide
Whether you live or whether you die”
U2 – Crumbs from your table

Last week the World Health Organisation published a report on life expectancy and some of the factors that influence it. The report was headline news here because of one startling statistic that emerged – male life expectancy in Calton, Glasgow is a mere 54 years; eight miles away in Lenzie it is 82!! A difference of 28 years in 8 miles.

Obviously this degree of divergence is appalling and begs many questions.

The WHO report states:
“The toxic combination of bad policies, economics, and politics is, in large measure, responsible for the fact that a majority of people in the world do not enjoy the good health that is biologically possible… Social injustice is killing people on a grand scale.”

The issue of Calton/Lenzie has sparked a predictable and lamentable round of political point-scoring. The reality is that significant investment has been made in places like Calton, but change on the scale that is required is long-term. It’s easy to get all high and mighty about these kind of situations. But the reality is that we live our comfortable lives in blissful ignorance of the situation right on our doorstep. I don’t know what the comparative life expectancy is for communities in and around Perth, but I know that poverty and hopelessness exists alongside middle-class affluence and consumption.

So before I criticise those responsible for social policy in Calton, I need to take a long, hard look at myself first.

On the day that the WHO report was published, there was another story in the headlines here. The Duke of Sutherland needs to raise some cash, so he’s planning to sell some paintings from his collection. The thing is, he’s been kind enough to lend them to the National Galleries of Scotland, who don’t want to lose them. So the Duke is prepared to sell two Titians for the bargain price of £50 million each.

To be honest Titian isn’t my ‘cup of tea’ anyway. But I’m horrified that the Scottish Government is planning to make a significant contribution (about £10 million) towards buying these paintings. How can this be justified?

My solution would be to let the Duke sell his paintings at market value (£150 million each!), then he can make a donation of say £50 million towards the development of arts related projects in Calton and other deprived areas of Scotland to provide some hope and stimulation for those whose life expectancy is somewhat less than the typical gallery viewer who would see the Titians anyway. At the very least, the government could divert their, actually, our £10 million to what in my view is a better cause.

... while sitting on our bums

Aye the Olympics are over for another 4 years. I really enjoyed them - the spectacle, the sport and the success. So I thought it was time for a few reflections.

It's funny how we (in the UK) get carried away with a few medals here and there. OK, so we did exceed expectations, but the way that the media has been extolling their virutes, you could be forgiven for thinking that the athletes had found a cure for all forms of cancer or eradicated global poverty. The word "heroes" is being inappropriately and over-used. They did well and hopefully they will inspire young people (and some oldies) to take up sport.

Which brings me to my next point - look at the sports where we did win gold medals. The Aussies and others had a point about us winning when we were sitting on our bums (cycling - 8 golds; yachting -4; rowing - 2; everything else - 5). I heard another observation about winning at 'posh' sports - rowing and yacthing would fit that bill. As we begin the inexorable build up to 2012 and the games in London, will we be promoting a wide range of sports, offering equal access and opportunity to all? (I have my doubts!)

I liked some of the alternative medal tables that were produced by the BBC News magazine. This leads me to wonder how much money was spent per medal achieved by some of the 'successful' countries - and what are the issues of justice relating to that. Maybe our politicians could focus on some of these issues - rather than arguing about whether or not we should have a GB football team in the 2012 games.

But I don't want to be a complete party-pooper. My last reflection is on the fastest man on earth - also, in my opinion the coolest man on earth - Usain Bolt. How awesome was he? Three golds, three world records! Maybe I'll switch my allegiance to Jamaica - they do quite well in both the traditional and alternative medal tables!

Time for reflection

Every week in oor wee Parliament, the business begins with 'Time for Reflection'. A speaker is invited to give the parliamentarians something to think about, and until yesterday it has always been a religious/ spiritual worthy who has been invited to fill this slot.

Yesterday the speaker was the erstwhile MP Tony Benn. I've always admired Tony Benn (much more than the other former Labour MP 'TB'!) Benn strikes me as a man of principle, and while I don't always agree with what he says, he seems to speak from a sense of conviction. You can find his talk here. I was intrigued to find that he has connections with Irvine (where my dad was born, and I was brought up).

I liked the conclusion to his talk yesterday:

"We live at a time in history when the power of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to destroy the human race is as never before, yet it is also a time when we have the resources, the technology, the know-how and the money to solve the problems of the human race. That is the most important choice that humanity has ever had to make, and it raises fundamental moral questions. If we are to make the right decisions, we would do well, I believe, to listen to the prophets, rather than the kings."

This was a good message to give our current crop of politicians - and the rest of us!

I wish we had more politicians like Tony Benn - sadly we don't.

Learning from mistakes - or not!

OK - spot the connection:

Peter Hain

Wee Wendy Alexander

George Osborne...

Aye - politicos who are in hot water over donations to their various activities.

Why can't they learn? They're not the first ones to fall foul of the rules about declaring income. Remember Henry McLeish?

It doesn't inspire confidence when the people entursted with governing the country can't follow rules - which they have been involved in drawing up!

But I think there's a deeper, moral question in all of this. What do they need the money for?

How did Peter Hain spend more than £100,000 on an internal party campaign to be Deputy Leader? Why did Wee Wendy need any money at all - she was elected unopposed! Does George Osborne have an explanantion (proper explanantion, not feeble excuse) for half a million pounds to run the shadow Treasury?

Has any of this money be used wisely? Or has it simply been used for self-indulgence - or worse?

And don't get me started on the obscene sums being spent on Presidential candidacy campaigns across the pond!!

What price democracy?

I’ve often wondered why the Western world is so keen to see democracy installed (or imposed?) across the world. Is it such a good thing?

There are inherent problems with voting systems. For example, hanging chads in the US; over 100,000 spoilt ballot papers in the most recent elections in Scotland; not to mention the intimidation and corruption that seems to characterise elections in many countries.

Earlier today I came across this quotation:

“The people are always said to know best. But the fact that democracies do not like sacrifices, do not listen to bad news nor wish to think about bad possibilities in the future, do not want their comfort or profits interfered with, should be accepted with apprehension, not complacence. Why is it evident that democracy and liberal values will prevail? The evidence is very limited, the historical experience with modern democracy brief, of a little more than two centuries. We do not know the future of democracy."
—William Pfaff, The Wrath of Nations: Civilizations and the Furies of Nationalism

My reaction was to think – “that’s a lot to get my head around, so maybe it’s best left alone for other to worry about!”

A few minutes later, I read the news of Benazir Bhutto’s murder and I realise that these are issues that affect us all. Admittedly, the impact of her assassination will not be felt directly by me, but in the nature of security threats (real or imagined) there will inevitably be a reaction for us all.

So is democracy worth dying for? Clearly Benazir Bhutto was fully aware of the risks that she faced, and some of her recent words seemed to echo the sentiments of Martin Luther King shortly before his death. For them, personal sacrifice was a price worth paying because their cause was so important to them.

There is more than a hint of the tradition of the Old Testament prophets in the actions of Benazir Bhutto – going to a place that she cared about, but where she would be in danger; speaking the truth whatever the consequences; trusting that good would come out of her actions. I don’t know what other motivations she may have had – I’m certainly not very familiar with the politics of Pakistan.

How should we respond? As Christians we should pray for Benazir and her family, and that the potential for turmoil and chaos in Pakistan is averted.

Maybe we need to think through how our ways of governing look to other people, and also to God. But most of all we should pray for a world where power corrupts and evil deeds are justified by those who should know better. However we’re governed, violent responses to opponents will always be wrong.

What does it mean when we say

“and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end”?

May Pakistan know peace in the days ahead.

The wonder of Wendy

So we are to have another leadership coronation in the Labour Party - a good excuse to be cynical? Well, probably - BUT I will resist the temptation.

(Of course, I reserve the right to revert to type at a later stage.)

I was intrigued by something that Wendy Alexander said on Friday when she announced that she was standing for the leadership. She said that the Scottish Labour Party needs to be:

"humble enough to listen, wise enough to engage and brave enough to renew"

OK - so it's a bit cheesy - but I like it. And it would be a good motto to live by - and we'll need to wait and see is she can live up to it. But with my cynicism paused I'll continue to try to apply the motto to all aspects of my life.