With the upcoming election now only a week away, you've probably heard and read hundreds out documents urging you to vote tactically. This blog intends to persuade you to do precisely the opposite.
Whatever your political standpoint, it makes sense not to deny it to yourself. Not to suppress your opinions in a liberal democracy, for fear of letting another party in, or just because you think it won't make any difference otherwise. I'd like to set you straight now: this is bullshit.
It's bullshit for a number of reasons. First of all, if everyone stopped tactical voting and just voted for precisely who they wanted, the party might not get in, but there'd sure as hell be a message that something was happening. It would make a statement if nothing else. And finally some of the minor parties would be getting recognition for having some really decent policies (in some cases, at least!). So it would certainly not be a wasted vote.
And it wouldn't be a wasted vote anyway. Because voting is such an important thing, so vital and integral to your identity, to vote for a party dubiously who you don't believe in or rather, you don't want to be voting for, would be somewhat fraudulent. So I urge you to please be true to yourself and keep your integrity: vote for who you want to, not who society is telling you to vote for.
That said, the likely consequence of this happening would be a hung parliament - though not necessarily; it depends who you vote for. I should now go off into a little spiel about why you shouldn't vote for Lib Dems but that would be in a way kind of hypocritical so I'll leave that one out for now. But basically I do side with the opinion that a hung parliament would be bad - not because laws would be difficult to pass, and I do appreciate the democratic mix of voices that would make it up - but simply because voting reform, which the Lib Dems are promising to pass, would not be a good thing right now. Perhaps PR would be a good thing to have in theory, in the future. But right now the threat of the BNP really is too real. They only got those seats in the European Parliament BECAUSE the European Parliament uses Proportional Representation. If this voting reform stretches to British Parliament, I'll be terrified. I can see it now - a hung parliament occurring, closet Tory boy Clegg all big and beamy about his success and people praising him while he negotiates a secret agenda with Mr. Cameron. Meanwhile, while everyone's fussing about this, before we know it, we have members of the BNP with seats in the Houses of Parliament. And all because of Proportional Representation - voting reform that the Lib Dems want brought in.
I'm not denying that in an ideal world, it might be a good thing to have. But need I remind you that our world is certainly not ideal. Not yet at least. We need to concentrate on crushing these fascist Nazi thugs that call themselves politicians, before we can resuscitate the sensible world of politics as we once knew it.
So please, don't be put off by all these leafletty pieces of propaganda. Vote for who YOU want to. Even if you vote in the BNP, if it's democratically voted, at the end of the day, fair is fair. My problem is I truly do NOT believe that people would vote these people in power, if they TRULY understood what they were all about. So if you're going to vote for Lib Dem, do it, and do it decisively - don't let threats of a hung parliament put you off. But do please ask yourself before you do it, whether you have the heart to vote for a party who want to introduce voting reform at a time that the BNP could really use it to their advantage.
Thursday 29 April 2010
Friday 23 April 2010
An egg-citing week in politics (cringe)
Fresh from egg-throwing incidents, David Cameron's face filled our TV screens once again last night at the second ever priministerial debate of its kind in our country. I'll wait for a later date to speculate on that, but what I want to focus my attention on in this entry is the first part of the first sentence. Yes, the title of this blog entry does not deceive you, unlike Cameron himself just might be trying to: it will focus on what we might for want of a better word, refer to as the 'eggy incident' that took place this Wednesday afternoon.
Of course, dear David is not the first politician to be splattered with egg yolk, nor is he likely to be the last. But my God, of the other two famous eggings that immediately spring to mind, did he handle it the best. Cool, calm and collected, he appeared as the press put it 'unruffled' and even made a joke about it which saw him somewhat as having the last laugh, feeble as it might have been.
Bear in mind the contrast of Nick Griffin's immature whines when he got egged, referring to the culprit as something like 'none other than a stupid student, what do you expect.' Then of course there was the Prezza Punch, which made John Prescott appear a bit TOO human for most people but got ample amounts of press coverage all the same.
The point is, the way the two polticians (if we can call NG that... which is stretching the limits a bit, to be fair) handled their eggings is regrettably cringeworthy. Nick Griffin talked condescendingly of an entire sub-cultural group and made very sweeping generalisations (but then again, what do you expect?), while Prescott to put it bluntly bawled like a baby. Neither of these reactions will have boded well in the public eye, but David Cameron's response was appropriately sober and non-accusational, with the subtle nuance of it coming 'after' the chicken (ie. the more positive bit) so as to still indicate a very mild judgement on the young boy's actions. It seems something you'd expect politicians to be all geared up for managing, being a fairly common incident, but as the above instances show, only Cameron truly responded with grace.
As for the Lib Dems, their egging day still appears to be yet to come. But hey, sure there'll be plenty of opportunities for Nick to get that splat yet, even if the media love him at the moment. One can dream at least - if only in metaphors...
Of course, dear David is not the first politician to be splattered with egg yolk, nor is he likely to be the last. But my God, of the other two famous eggings that immediately spring to mind, did he handle it the best. Cool, calm and collected, he appeared as the press put it 'unruffled' and even made a joke about it which saw him somewhat as having the last laugh, feeble as it might have been.
Bear in mind the contrast of Nick Griffin's immature whines when he got egged, referring to the culprit as something like 'none other than a stupid student, what do you expect.' Then of course there was the Prezza Punch, which made John Prescott appear a bit TOO human for most people but got ample amounts of press coverage all the same.
The point is, the way the two polticians (if we can call NG that... which is stretching the limits a bit, to be fair) handled their eggings is regrettably cringeworthy. Nick Griffin talked condescendingly of an entire sub-cultural group and made very sweeping generalisations (but then again, what do you expect?), while Prescott to put it bluntly bawled like a baby. Neither of these reactions will have boded well in the public eye, but David Cameron's response was appropriately sober and non-accusational, with the subtle nuance of it coming 'after' the chicken (ie. the more positive bit) so as to still indicate a very mild judgement on the young boy's actions. It seems something you'd expect politicians to be all geared up for managing, being a fairly common incident, but as the above instances show, only Cameron truly responded with grace.
As for the Lib Dems, their egging day still appears to be yet to come. But hey, sure there'll be plenty of opportunities for Nick to get that splat yet, even if the media love him at the moment. One can dream at least - if only in metaphors...
Wednesday 14 April 2010
Vote for personality as well as policy! - and yes, you read that correctly...
There's a lot of stuff out there at the moment promoting the ideology of 'policies, not personalities!'. Indeed, voting for someone as opposed to the party they lead is becoming scorned upon, scoffed at and brushed under the carpet at just plain ridiculous. It's becoming very de rigeur to vote strictly according to policy and very much a 'dirty' idea to vote for personality. But is this really such a good thing?
I would argue definitely not - I'm really quite frightened and intimidated by it in all honesty. First of all, in a country where we don't have very high voter turnout, I see it as much more important and a more useful and worthwhile use of time to instead concentrate on that fact - and instead of telling people how to vote, we should just focus on encouraging then to get off their bored asses and actually use their democratic voice.
Using the term 'vote for policies, not personalities!' is hardly encouraging rhetoric for someone who isn't inclined to vote in the first place. It threatens the viewer that if they don't clue themselves up on every inch of each party's manifesto, they might as well not vote at all. I think this is a ridiculous message to be hammering to people with a voter apathy as high as Britain.
Sites like this don't help: http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BC60DB95FE74. Sure, they do a brilliant job of preaching to the converted, but at such a crucial time, that really isn't what we want. It took me 5 minutes short of an hour to fill out the damn thing - and that was with 3 fields (Economy, Europe and Crime) left blank (because I don't feel I understand quite enough about each of these issues to vote on them). Someone who isn't likely to vote would be even less likely to vote in the General Election after filling out that thing - if they did it with any thought whatsoever. Hell, I am less likely to vote after filling it in! It doesn't even tell you which party the manifestos are from at the end - apart from the ones you voted for!
It's as if we are intent to take a step back to the pre-television era of politics, where people were so set on voting for policy that they disliked the idea of the 'idiot box' expanding the conscience of the electorate to a 'less intellectual' class of people who would 'only' vote on public speaking skills and such. We don't want to go back 50 years in time though surely, after all the progress made?
While this next part of this entry may on the surface appear to contradict my previous blog post, it is important to me to choose a leader that I can relate to. In that sense, background is important. I do think it's important that the Prime Minister of our country is experienced in a manner of different socio-economic environments and doesn't just know one field or sector of life: the wealthy elite. I just don't agree that it should be used as a way to segregate people and parties, and certainly isn't a relevant criticism of someone if his or her policies contradict his or her upbringing. But the importance of trust in a politician is paramount, and I'd like to think he knew a little about me too; the common man, and that he or she well and truly knew about what he or she is talking about when they get out there and represent British society.
My results from my 'policies, not personalities' quiz contained no real surprises, and to me just confirmed what I already suspected - that Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dem policies are all very mainstream and most importantly, frighteningly undistinct. In this instance, even if I wanted to vote purely on policy, it wouldn't be possible because I'm tied. So I'd simply choose my leader by my instincts and who I thought could deliver things best, who I can place most trust in, and also, crucially, who would liase well in international affairs.
I won't vote for the Green Party even though according to its policies, I should be doing. I don't warm to their leader. To be fair, I have barely even seen her speaking, but I just don't think a lot of their policies would be workable, hence I didn't vote for them, whereas I did see Labour's as at least feasible even if not necessarily highly desirable. I also don't know if I trust the Greens to really stand up for people on a pragmatic level as well as a preachy principled one (in my opnion, both are important in politics). In a similar way to how I don't trust Labour after their lies over Iraq, or the Lib Dems for changing their views on top-up fees. And it's probably best not to get me started on the Conservatives, but I think having in its history the campaign slogan of 'If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour' speaks for itself.
The idea of voting policy and not personality-wise promotes none of this - it doesn't focus on the history of the party and what it has done in the past, it doesn't even ask you to bear in mind the general political philosophy behind each of the parties. Voting on policy is certainly something to bear in mind, but it's definitely not everything. And I daresay the same thing can be said about personality - but it should at least get a look-in!
An interesting analogy for it would be in your lovelife - would you rather a guy who spoilt you and gave you exactly what you wanted, but was really dull and who you felt different to and you can't really relate to; or someone who for one reason or other didn't deliver exactly what you wanted, but did it with integrity, meaning, feeling... and genuinely tried his hardest for you? Now this obviously isn't the greatest comparison in the world for a number of reasons, but it gets you at least thinking. Even if you aren't ready to marry a person's policies, perhaps their personality will be enough for you to hang around and at least consider them on terms of what they can do for you in terms of being themself.
There is such a thin dividing line between policies in the three main parties these days. If people want to vote for personality, vote for personality. Hell, it's all I have to go on on May 6th.
I would argue definitely not - I'm really quite frightened and intimidated by it in all honesty. First of all, in a country where we don't have very high voter turnout, I see it as much more important and a more useful and worthwhile use of time to instead concentrate on that fact - and instead of telling people how to vote, we should just focus on encouraging then to get off their bored asses and actually use their democratic voice.
Using the term 'vote for policies, not personalities!' is hardly encouraging rhetoric for someone who isn't inclined to vote in the first place. It threatens the viewer that if they don't clue themselves up on every inch of each party's manifesto, they might as well not vote at all. I think this is a ridiculous message to be hammering to people with a voter apathy as high as Britain.
Sites like this don't help: http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BC60DB95FE74. Sure, they do a brilliant job of preaching to the converted, but at such a crucial time, that really isn't what we want. It took me 5 minutes short of an hour to fill out the damn thing - and that was with 3 fields (Economy, Europe and Crime) left blank (because I don't feel I understand quite enough about each of these issues to vote on them). Someone who isn't likely to vote would be even less likely to vote in the General Election after filling out that thing - if they did it with any thought whatsoever. Hell, I am less likely to vote after filling it in! It doesn't even tell you which party the manifestos are from at the end - apart from the ones you voted for!
It's as if we are intent to take a step back to the pre-television era of politics, where people were so set on voting for policy that they disliked the idea of the 'idiot box' expanding the conscience of the electorate to a 'less intellectual' class of people who would 'only' vote on public speaking skills and such. We don't want to go back 50 years in time though surely, after all the progress made?
While this next part of this entry may on the surface appear to contradict my previous blog post, it is important to me to choose a leader that I can relate to. In that sense, background is important. I do think it's important that the Prime Minister of our country is experienced in a manner of different socio-economic environments and doesn't just know one field or sector of life: the wealthy elite. I just don't agree that it should be used as a way to segregate people and parties, and certainly isn't a relevant criticism of someone if his or her policies contradict his or her upbringing. But the importance of trust in a politician is paramount, and I'd like to think he knew a little about me too; the common man, and that he or she well and truly knew about what he or she is talking about when they get out there and represent British society.
My results from my 'policies, not personalities' quiz contained no real surprises, and to me just confirmed what I already suspected - that Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dem policies are all very mainstream and most importantly, frighteningly undistinct. In this instance, even if I wanted to vote purely on policy, it wouldn't be possible because I'm tied. So I'd simply choose my leader by my instincts and who I thought could deliver things best, who I can place most trust in, and also, crucially, who would liase well in international affairs.
I won't vote for the Green Party even though according to its policies, I should be doing. I don't warm to their leader. To be fair, I have barely even seen her speaking, but I just don't think a lot of their policies would be workable, hence I didn't vote for them, whereas I did see Labour's as at least feasible even if not necessarily highly desirable. I also don't know if I trust the Greens to really stand up for people on a pragmatic level as well as a preachy principled one (in my opnion, both are important in politics). In a similar way to how I don't trust Labour after their lies over Iraq, or the Lib Dems for changing their views on top-up fees. And it's probably best not to get me started on the Conservatives, but I think having in its history the campaign slogan of 'If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour' speaks for itself.
The idea of voting policy and not personality-wise promotes none of this - it doesn't focus on the history of the party and what it has done in the past, it doesn't even ask you to bear in mind the general political philosophy behind each of the parties. Voting on policy is certainly something to bear in mind, but it's definitely not everything. And I daresay the same thing can be said about personality - but it should at least get a look-in!
An interesting analogy for it would be in your lovelife - would you rather a guy who spoilt you and gave you exactly what you wanted, but was really dull and who you felt different to and you can't really relate to; or someone who for one reason or other didn't deliver exactly what you wanted, but did it with integrity, meaning, feeling... and genuinely tried his hardest for you? Now this obviously isn't the greatest comparison in the world for a number of reasons, but it gets you at least thinking. Even if you aren't ready to marry a person's policies, perhaps their personality will be enough for you to hang around and at least consider them on terms of what they can do for you in terms of being themself.
There is such a thin dividing line between policies in the three main parties these days. If people want to vote for personality, vote for personality. Hell, it's all I have to go on on May 6th.
Tuesday 6 April 2010
Scrub the class politics propaganda and let's all love one another!
OK, so I hope you all realised that last entry was an April Fool and an utterly pathetically rubbish, dire one at that - turning out more as a bad parody than a seriously-facaded publication intended as a joke. As I said in my first entry on here, this blog was not created with the intention of backing any particular party, but more to just observe and analyse and at times bitch or laugh at the crazy world of British politics. However, anyone who knows me even slightly, knows that the opinion I expressed in my last blog entry is completely contrary to my most basic and core beliefs. So I hope you weren't fooled! Anyway, we'll set that one to rest now. Onward and upward, as they say...
Today was a particularly significant date on the political calendar - Gordon Brown has finally called the election date, and it is not surprisingly the widely-anticipated date of May 6th. It is only today that it dawned on me just how close this makes the General Election - exactly a month's time! It's crazy how time flies.
Too bogged down in my Italian work, unfortunately I didn't manage to catch much of the coverage, but from what I can ascertain it was a pretty standard day with nothing too out-of-the-ordinary going on. Labour doing their best to defend their working class roots, as they've become particularly pressured to do so of late, while David Cameron was busy promising a 'fresh start' with 'modern Conservatism'. (tautology, much?). Nick Clegg promised 'real change' but gave no real indication on how the Liberal Democrats plan on delivering this.
Brown and Cameron are extremely close in the polls now; it's dangerous and critical times for both parties. In spite of this, there was no obvious hoo-har between the two leaders, and certainly no real-life spectacle of Gordon Brown telling Cameron to 'Step outside, posh boy' outside Downing Street (as a friend of mine remarked in a Facebook status update yesterday he'd like to happen).
It is the last point here that I intend for this blog entry to focus one. While my April Fool was a reckless, hurried, last-minute jobby with no clever pun or reflection of the times, the Guardian certainly did theirs very differently.
Being the gullible fool that I am, I actually managed to fall for the article (you can view it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/01/labour-gordon-brown-hard-man) for all of two minutes, the caption 'Vote Labour. Or else.' being the bit that really confused me. However, I soon came to my senses and laughed along with the rest of them. Only in all honesty, I didn't really find it that amusing.
Perhaps it's because of the inseparable truth that the joke relies on in order for it to work. Labour *are* using class issues as part of their campaign. And this not only aggravates, but scares me.
While I wouldn't go as far as Ken Clarke on Question Time a few weeks back, declaring it 'discriminatory' and 'ludicrous', comparing the idea to racism, I do see that it perpetuates the divide in our already 'broken' society. While I maintain that class issues are unfortunately still relevant today, I do not agree that it is something that parties should be basing their campaigns on. Even if Labour was originally the party of the working class.
I make a point of using 'originally.' And perhaps that's why they are now resorting to such childish, petty and at certain times irrelevant class politics to play the election campaign game. They want to go against what so many people realised a long time ago - that Labour are nearly every bit as middle class as the Tories nowadays.
By creating this division, Labour are trying to set themselves as far away from their opposition as possible - positioning themselves as the 'fair' party; the 'party of the pauper' while still representing and caring for the interests of the rich and super-rich. But will it work? I have my doubts. What Labour ought to be focussing on is their policies, which should speak for themselves, instead of spending money covering billboards about how they aren't as 'posh' as the Tories.
Because at the end of the day, it isn't about that. The Conservatives couldn't have won the election in 1979 without the working class vote. Margaret Thatcher herself was the child of a greengrocer. I did a charity hitch-hike about a week ago and one of our lifts was from a friendly director of Education and shiny Volvo driver who'd studied Economics at Leeds Uni. My friend was trying to talk economics with him, asking whether he liked the crossover between politics and economics. And what Dave (the Volvo driver) answered was something I am in utter agreement with. Basically, stuff the class politics thing. Stuff the economics. What is mostly relevant to politics is social issues, and whether at the end of the day you think more about other people (Labour) or more about yourself (Conservatives). And there we have it. Not very political, not very technical, but still in my eyes, damn accurate.
So when you do vote in the election a month today, vote with your heart and keep this philosophy in mind. I can pretty much guarantee that the policies we will see from whoever our new government is will opeate broadly in accordance with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8603591.stm
Today was a particularly significant date on the political calendar - Gordon Brown has finally called the election date, and it is not surprisingly the widely-anticipated date of May 6th. It is only today that it dawned on me just how close this makes the General Election - exactly a month's time! It's crazy how time flies.
Too bogged down in my Italian work, unfortunately I didn't manage to catch much of the coverage, but from what I can ascertain it was a pretty standard day with nothing too out-of-the-ordinary going on. Labour doing their best to defend their working class roots, as they've become particularly pressured to do so of late, while David Cameron was busy promising a 'fresh start' with 'modern Conservatism'. (tautology, much?). Nick Clegg promised 'real change' but gave no real indication on how the Liberal Democrats plan on delivering this.
Brown and Cameron are extremely close in the polls now; it's dangerous and critical times for both parties. In spite of this, there was no obvious hoo-har between the two leaders, and certainly no real-life spectacle of Gordon Brown telling Cameron to 'Step outside, posh boy' outside Downing Street (as a friend of mine remarked in a Facebook status update yesterday he'd like to happen).
It is the last point here that I intend for this blog entry to focus one. While my April Fool was a reckless, hurried, last-minute jobby with no clever pun or reflection of the times, the Guardian certainly did theirs very differently.
Being the gullible fool that I am, I actually managed to fall for the article (you can view it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/01/labour-gordon-brown-hard-man) for all of two minutes, the caption 'Vote Labour. Or else.' being the bit that really confused me. However, I soon came to my senses and laughed along with the rest of them. Only in all honesty, I didn't really find it that amusing.
Perhaps it's because of the inseparable truth that the joke relies on in order for it to work. Labour *are* using class issues as part of their campaign. And this not only aggravates, but scares me.
While I wouldn't go as far as Ken Clarke on Question Time a few weeks back, declaring it 'discriminatory' and 'ludicrous', comparing the idea to racism, I do see that it perpetuates the divide in our already 'broken' society. While I maintain that class issues are unfortunately still relevant today, I do not agree that it is something that parties should be basing their campaigns on. Even if Labour was originally the party of the working class.
I make a point of using 'originally.' And perhaps that's why they are now resorting to such childish, petty and at certain times irrelevant class politics to play the election campaign game. They want to go against what so many people realised a long time ago - that Labour are nearly every bit as middle class as the Tories nowadays.
By creating this division, Labour are trying to set themselves as far away from their opposition as possible - positioning themselves as the 'fair' party; the 'party of the pauper' while still representing and caring for the interests of the rich and super-rich. But will it work? I have my doubts. What Labour ought to be focussing on is their policies, which should speak for themselves, instead of spending money covering billboards about how they aren't as 'posh' as the Tories.
Because at the end of the day, it isn't about that. The Conservatives couldn't have won the election in 1979 without the working class vote. Margaret Thatcher herself was the child of a greengrocer. I did a charity hitch-hike about a week ago and one of our lifts was from a friendly director of Education and shiny Volvo driver who'd studied Economics at Leeds Uni. My friend was trying to talk economics with him, asking whether he liked the crossover between politics and economics. And what Dave (the Volvo driver) answered was something I am in utter agreement with. Basically, stuff the class politics thing. Stuff the economics. What is mostly relevant to politics is social issues, and whether at the end of the day you think more about other people (Labour) or more about yourself (Conservatives). And there we have it. Not very political, not very technical, but still in my eyes, damn accurate.
So when you do vote in the election a month today, vote with your heart and keep this philosophy in mind. I can pretty much guarantee that the policies we will see from whoever our new government is will opeate broadly in accordance with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8603591.stm
Thursday 1 April 2010
Businesses back Tory National Insurance plans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8599447.stm
Something that just might see the Conservatives crawling into power come May 3rd.
It's the prime political news of the day, and was hotly discussed on the BBC's Question Time tonight. But will it work to help the Conservative party whip up support at such a crucial stage, before the date of the General election is called? Many are saying yes.
Big businesses are responsible for a huge part of the British economy and for this reason should be honoured and respected. The fact that many big bosses are now backing the Conservatives' objections to National Insurance is a brilliant thing, giving both themselves and the Tories power and real strength in such questionable times.
After all, money makes the world go around.
Something that just might see the Conservatives crawling into power come May 3rd.
It's the prime political news of the day, and was hotly discussed on the BBC's Question Time tonight. But will it work to help the Conservative party whip up support at such a crucial stage, before the date of the General election is called? Many are saying yes.
Big businesses are responsible for a huge part of the British economy and for this reason should be honoured and respected. The fact that many big bosses are now backing the Conservatives' objections to National Insurance is a brilliant thing, giving both themselves and the Tories power and real strength in such questionable times.
After all, money makes the world go around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)