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.