![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
same_differenceSo I promised myself I'd sit down and do some serious election research prior to Thursday in order to make as informed an opinion as possible. I have a collection of biases formed from familial influences, discussions with friends and opinions of character formed from listening to politicians. However I don't feel that those opinions have any sound basis, and considering how close and important this election is I feel it's worthwhile to try and change that for the better.
The thing with me is I have an awful tendency to take the word of people who are more educated/informed than me about a subject as the truth*; rather than using it what I've been told as a starting point from which to research and form my opinion from. Then when discussing things as I have limited confidence in my own opinions (or no actual opinion of my own) I tend to present one of the things I have been told and test it against others. Partly I'm doing this to check the validity of the opinion when presented to others, but mostly because I'm just curious about how people think, and it's an excellent way to explore someone else's thought processes.
*My Maths degree doesn't help with that considering how it was taught.
For the sake of interest my plan is as follows: In this post firstly a few general points, then I'll note my current largely uninformed opinions of the current parties, and the member of the cabinet and shadow cabinets. Then discuss my current opinions on the major issues using![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
elmyra's list to ensure I don't miss anything. From there it'll go up in a second post where I'll go and do the research; looking at ministers voting records, working through each of the manifestos and discussing points I agree and disagree with (though sadly I won't be able to do it with the wit of the "Yes Minister" actor and writers interpretation of the manifestos as broadcast on News Night in the last couple of weeks). Finally I'll present based on the above who I think I should vote for.
Right the rest will be behind cut tags for sake of all your friends pages.
Before I begin
Before all that a few things worth stating:
- Given a choice my ideal form of government is Benevolent Omnipotent/Omniscient Dictatorship. Of course that's not an option.
- Failing that I'd at least go for the opportunity to select my fantasy cabinet, cherry picking the best of each party and ditching the dross.
- That at the end of the day the problem with democracy is everyone else. No matter how much research I'll do mine is only one vote among millions and though at best I might slightly improve the overall level of intelligent thought going into this election the difference will be ultimately insignificant.
- The "first past the post" system means the only choices here are Tory or Liberal. If I much to my surprise find out that I do have reasons to vote Labour it would be irrelevant here anyway. Though while I will go in with as open a mind as possible (or at least with conscience mind to my biases), I admit I consider that outcome to be unlikely.
- I've lost all patience with lifetime voters of any party. If the choices are 'Party A' or 'Don't Vote', or worse yet just 'Party A' then that's doing democracy wrong. Just to be clear I understand the need for party political activists, but if there's no conceivable answer to the question "What would make you not vote for Party A" then that opinion doesn't matter. Party loyalty should be earned, it should be deserved and should be losable. All the political parties get away with too much, too many politicians are effectively untouchable thanks to party stronghold seats, places where the populace are incapable of voting for anything other than one party. Party political activists should be both about promoting their party and holding their party to account to the ideals it is supposed to espouse; I wonder how many of them really think to do the latter. At the very least it would be nice if all voters remembered that the party on offer now, may well be radically different to the party when they first decided for or against them regardless of their unchanging name.
- The expenses scandal really wasn't an issue for me. The public sector generally for a long long time had a system of allowances, not expenses. The difference: an allowance is something you get until you don't use it, an expense is something you can reclaim back the cost of. Therefore of course you had politicians claiming for everything under the sun, that's the culture allowances create, because if you don't do it, lose the allowance and then need it the next year, your stuffed. Now those who did behave illegally, and were investigated by the police was something else entirely. Still it's good the system is being changed, but the media driven fury behind it wasn't proportionate to the event.
- Be wary of any party talking about cancelling projects to save money. Most contracts with governments have protection clauses - because projects tend to run longer than parliaments do. These protection clauses tend to say that if the project is cancelled the government pays for all the work done to date, and typically the total value of all expected profits the company thought it would make from that project. So cancelling a project can be a very expensive way to get nothing, hopefully cheaper than paying to get it finished though.
- I think a hung parliament will do some serious damage to this country for the year or so it lasts before the next election. I also think it's mostly inevitable. However I hope though that it as an outcome will reshape the political landscape from the current 2 and a bit system and also spell the end of a few particularly rubbish MPs careers; thereby being better for the country in the long run. Why do I think a hung parliament will be terrible? Our party politics is too adversarial generally, as are our unions*, a weak parliament will allow influential bodies - the rich, the unions, companies, etc to maintain their preferred bits of the current state of play. The smaller parties, particularly the national ones are also a problem with this, last night listening to Any Questions One of the SNP SMP's said how important it was for everyone in a balanced party to behave responsibly which is why it was important the SNP got as many seats as possible so they could protect Scotland from any cuts. In a situation where the UK as a whole has to make major cuts how exactly is saying you're going to do all you can to ensure Scotland gets no cuts behaving responsibly?
*Thatcher might have castrated the unions in the 80s, but she certainly didn't change any of the inherent short sighted selfish union attitudes that got her into power in the first place. Seriously look at BA, if BA goes under they've all lost their jobs and so what do they do when the company is trying to do things to survive and reorganise as it's traditional market no longer exists? They go on strike and make it even worse off. Unions are useful and important, essential even, I just wish when things got bad the ones in this country were much more about how can we ensure the security of as many jobs as possible by helping the company survive/improve rather than what can we do to avoid losing any of our jobs/perks regardless of the consequences.
Initial Bias
I freely admit the following is biased and not always particularly informed. I do plan to check these statements as much as possible for the next section in part 2.
First a bit about my origins to ground my political view points:
My father and his parents came to this country as British refugees of the Suez Canal War, while my grandparents were wealthy in Egypt (my grandfather owned his own painting business, my grandmother was a lady of leisure as I understand it) they obviously couldn't take much with them. My father was four and couldn't speak English when he came to this country. He grew up mostly in East London and worked up from the bottom classes in a rough school, into a better one, and eventually to being one of four people passed the degree in Biochemistry from the City of London University, he has and continues to works too hard every day.
My mother grew up in a council flat in Highbury. Her father came over from Ireland in the Second World War to work filling the holes bombed by the Luftwaffe in our runways. He worked most of his life as a postman, my nan didn't work until later in life when she worked as a dinner lady in a local school.
I grew up in the city of Bath, in a nice house, went to a RC primary school, and a RC comprehensive; I never considered going to a private school. I have all these things, and an excellent start in life because of how hard my parents and grandparents have worked, and I'm grateful I don't need to work anywhere near as hard as a result.
I've definitely grown up middle class child. I think I still self identify as British and find nationalism strange. I always find inequality slightly jarring because I was raised to treat everyone equally with respect, to not prejudge (though I fail at that) and trust others to the point they have just enough rope to hang themselves with. I respect my father a great deal. I consider myself to be incredibly lucky to be born to my parents in this country and never believe I'll be grateful enough of that fact.
I believe in the importance of education, that luck is something you make, and that feelings of self entitlement get you no where. I despair at the applauding of ignorance, and of blind fanaticism about anything.
In summary here's the political opinions I've grown up with:
Thatcher: Terrible
Major: Really quite good actually.
Blair: Slimey + Rubbish
Brown: Disaster.
(I gather they liked and voted for James Callaghan)
Locally they've had a dim opinion of Don Foster because I gather he was a bit rubbish at first. Then again he was following Chris Patten who went on to become Governor of Hong Kong during the handover to the Chinese, and then European Commissioner. Very much a real statesman and so inevitable a hard act for anyone to follow. These days sounds like he's quite good at his job, which I'd hope he would be after 18 years of doing it. I think I have perhaps changed my parents opinion of him, not that there in his constituency any more (boundary changes at some point I believe).
So the parties:
Labour:
As the incumbent party I have a hard time believing any talk of reform from them; they're certainly not going to put forward reforms that worsen their electoral position. Considering some of the majorities they've had in the last thirteen years if they've not been capable of doing it by now, I can't see them being capable of doing it in the next parliament. I also find it a bit rich the talk of how bad the unelected House of Lords is when we've had an effectively unelected Prime Minister and unelected members of the cabinet (Lords Mandelson and Sugar).
I don't understand why people believe they have a good record on the economy. From my understanding of it the last 13 years could be summed up with:
Year 1: Even tighter version of the Tory get out of recession spending plan, join in global relaxing of banking regulation, start talking about "No more boom and bust" (hah!). Also started taxing pension funds (pay attention) and raise other taxes.*
Year 2: See Year 1
Year 3: Begin to spend likes there's no tomorrow. Start selling gold at lowest possible price. More tax increases.
Year 4: As year 3 continuing gold selling. More tax increases.*
Year 5: Lots of spending, finish gold selling, start to borrow. More tax increases.
Year 6: Lots more spending, continue to borrow. More tax increases.
Year 7 - 11: Like year 6 with yet more borrowing. (Year 8 - Pensions Crisis becomes big news, I wonder if the tax on pensions those last 8 years might have made it worse...)
Year 12: Banking Crisis! Oh noes so much debt!
Year 13: Appears to be reasonable handling of recession, considering awful starting position as a result of previous years economic policy. The much slower than most everyone else climb out of recession just shows how bad a position we started off in.
*NB A little research was done to confirm my figures and I noted how both the '97 and '01 manifestos promised no tax rises, interestingly it appears pre budget reports before the three last elections generally result in tax reductions, followed by tax rises in the post election budget.
Here's the thing the banking crisis was ultimately a result of the deregulation of banks, something with Brown has admitted he made a mistake on. However equally so the good years were primarily a result of good global economic times. I've heard some convincing arguments that governments actually have little real impact on the global economy, though personally I'd argue what they can do and do do is affect how much a country benefits from the good times, and how vulnerable it is to the bad times. Brown did do fairly well on the former (by hitching the economy to the banking sector), but at a cost of making the inevitable bad period much worse for us. However the Labour tune has been all "the good years were all because of us" and at the same time "the bad times are totally not our fault, it's the global economic situation". From my point of view if you're going to use absolutes (and you really shouldn't) you get one or the other either the good years were all their success, and therefore the bad time is all their failure. Or the bad time is all the global economic situations fault and the good times were also thanks to the global economic situation.
I also know that the NHS could have been in a much better state than it is now, had the government got around to the right ideas sooner. Massively increasing spending, but then using it mostly on wage increases which while needed weren't exactly a thought through improvement plan. I haven't forgotten the waiting lists to get on waiting lists that were an early Labour scandal. Sadly Frank Dobson was a disaster, undoing a lot of the good that was coming in just before the election, and it's taken 13 years to get back to the same state.
For example in '96 GP groups were looking at creating day surgeries; these specialise in treatments with low recovery time - for example you can do a cataract operation in which the patient can be in and our in the same day, compared to a weeks recovery in bed using traditional approaches. The advantages are obvious higher turn around using less beds meaning you do more treatments at less overall cost. When Labour came in '97 these were all scrapped as power was taken from GPs and consolidated centrally, last year they started making noises about doing it again. The fact they were using the same figures from the reports my father wrote back in '94 and '95 , a 13-14 year delay, is one clear example of how much better the NHS could have been if things had been different.
Now of the major changes they've made here are the good, bad and neutral ones that I'm aware of, I fully plan to investigate more when I get to the actual research part of this:
Good
Smoking Ban
Afghanistan
Minimum wage
Neutral:
Fox hunting ban
Bad
Iraq - one war at a time please.
Anti-Terrorist legislation.
Tuition fees
I'd also like to mention all the various enquiries we had particularly during the Blair years which cleared the government far too thoroughly to be credible.
So yeah I really can't think of much, more research needed here definitely.
On the cabinet the ones whose names actually mean anything to me:
Gordon Brown - First and foremost he's a liar, an admitted one. He's lied to a parliamentary committee, he's repeatedly lied about tax raises. I've seen no evidence beyond the recent recession (and that's too early to judge) to suggest he's actually been any good as a Chancellor. Actually going back to the Chilcot enquiry choosing to not know anything about the Iraq War as the fricking chancellor of the exchequer is more damning than just being misinformed and supporting a bad war (assuming you believe his line of course). He also can't answer questions provided to him at all, he can however read repeatedly from an internal script very well. I like to suspect and I'm curious to verify whether or not the the size of the housing market bubble was so large because Brown had been driving the economy to ensure it looked good when he became PM, but it hadn't much later than planned because Blair was having too much fun being a limpet. The debates really didn't alter my opinion of him.
David Miliband - very very slimey, and completely inappropriate choice for Foreign Secretary as he just doesn't know how to be a statesman. Feels too much like he's trying to position himself as the next party leader, and spent time studying how Blair got in. If things go badly and Brown gets ousted* expect Miliband to be a forerunner to replace him.
*Which would be marvellous.
Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper - I don't know much about them except that they're married. For some indiscernible reason I find this to be a totally unacceptable state for two members of cabinet. I can't articulate why it just feels wrong.
Jack Straw - I like. He made a much better Foreign Secretary than Miliband. He just strikes me as much more honest than the others. I'd have him in my fantasy cabinet possibly as Foreign Secretary, but I'm not convinced he'd work well with some of the other choices.
Alistair Darling - I mostly feel sorry for him. I think if he'd been allowed to be Chancellor without being under Brown's thumb he'd being doing a much better job. Would probably have him in my fantasy cabinet.
Peter Mandelson - I find him to be completely disingenuous, he's fallen out of favour and clambered back in to favour a surprising number of times. I can't shake the feeling he's purely out for himself, and will back whoever he think we'll keep him in power.
Of the above people I dislike let me put it like this, if Labour's entire campaign was 'Vote for us and we won't let any of them near Westminster let along government again' I'd actually vote for them. Of the rest I just really don't know anything about them. Looking at again I am glad that Blears, Prescott and Smith are gone from the cabinet in the former and politics in the latter. On the other hand I thought Cook was a good one, and his death was a real shame.
Overall I wouldn't call New Labour a socialist party, because it's not been since it was designed. What it is is a sit in the centre ground and get itself elected into power party. The blatant borrowing of most of the actually good ideas the Tory's had over the last 13 years is one example of that. Also fighting an election on a campaign principle of change is scary so keep us hasn't done them any favours in my view. The only traditional labour thing they've done is centralise power and massively increase the size of the state. I'm never been convinced that centralised power with Whitehall dispatched directives is the correct way to run local services.
I also wish they'd had an actual spending review because then maybe we'd have some more details economic policies coming from the parties, rather than the wishy washy we can't really say yet stuff we've been currently getting.
I'm curious to see how research into their voting patterns and their manifesto and the policies they brought in over the last few years alters the above.
Conservatives:
I don't hold the innate hatred of the Conservatives that a lot of my social circle seem to. I agree that Thatcher was a terrible monster who did great damage, but ultimately she was a monster of the unions own creation. It's a shame that someone heartless was the one that was brought in to do what needed to be done. By the same note it's been 18 years, 2/3rds of my lifetime since she was in power, if it's not been long enough yet, when will it be?
It's been 13 years since they were in power and to be honest I was too young to really have formed an opinion about the government then, so this will be inevitable smaller than the above (thankfully).
David Cameron - My main concern is he's learnt from the Blairite school of politics all style, no substance. I'm not convinced he's make a good Prime minister. Listening to him on debates hasn't greatly changed my view. Though I be inclined to say give him a few more years, and see what's he like then.
William Hague - I don't think he's as bad as the press made him out to be when he was party leader. Seems to have a fairly sensible head on his shoulders, if not a particularly interesting one. Would want him on my fantasy cabinet somewhere, I think.
George Osbourne - I'm unconvinced he's cut out to be Chancellor, I just don't think he's got the write mentality for the job. Feels too much like a mouth piece for other people than someone with his own opinions.
Ken Clarke - I've not heard him say anything I disagree with, if I could have anyone as chancellor it would be him, hell I'd happily have him as PM. Though apparently according to my parents he was a moron in the 70's, but that just shows people can get better with time. Always comes across as affable and straight. Considering what the current state of things is straight politicians are definitely in demand now.
Liam Fox - has never particularly impressed, but I haven't seen much of him really.
And of the rest, none of them mean anything to me, and it's what 4 days now before the election?
Locally I've spoken to Fabian Richter when he came to my door. He's a naturalised German though no trace of an accent there, and didn't come across particularly as an idiot. What I found interesting is he's clearly got some knowledge of local politics and was quick to try and squash some of the less favourable rumours I've heard about him as Lib Dem lies. I need to look into him in more detail, but I've not written him off yet, I would need to find a fair bit to convince me about him though. Most interesting quote I had from him when chatting to him though, "Given a choice between a hung parliament and a large labour majority, I'd take the Labour majority hands down." or something close to that anyway.
I don't think a conservative government would be all bad, nor do I think it would be that good; though I think they could do a better job of things than the current government, but then again considering what I think of the current government that wouldn't be hard. I'm expecting to find some nasty surprises among their election manifesto when I study it.
Liberal Democrats:
Well firstly I miss Paddy Ashdown. I'd have no problems voting Lib Dem if he was in charge; though all parties are really lacking in good calibre politicians. Charles Kennedy in comparison never came across as someone who could handle leadership, and I think time bore that out. I think much like the Tories there are some policies I agree with and some I disagree with but I've not explored that in enough depth with either of them to really see who I agree with more. My ever present concern with the Liberal Democrats is they're at just the right size where they can be populists without worrying too much about how they've had to make it work when their in charge.
Nick Clegg - still feels a bit lacking as a potential Prime Minister, but has impressed in the leadership debates. At the very least he's the one who cottoned on fastest that this it's not parliamentary questions, and point scoring for the sake of point scoring won't go down as well. I'd stick him somewhere on my fantasy cabinet. Wasn't impressed with wife coming out to make the political statement that she wasn't going to come out and make political statements. The actions of the other candidates wives was more blatant and unnecessary, but I doubt she was so naive so as not to know what she was doing.
Vince Cable - as acting leader he really didn't impress me, as chancellor he certainly has he background for it. However I worry he's a bit too much of a jaded ex-banker and the inherent biases affect his judgement. I'm also concerned that he's struggles too much when taken out of his comfort zone considering the role he's playing.
Don Foster - I don't know much about him, but others speak highly of his voting records. He's clearly become a good local MP from what I hear, but then again he wouldn't still be here if it hadn't, and considering as a Lib Dem he's not had much influence over the years in parliament I'd expect him to become a strong local voice. Basically I don't know much, other than he's come a long way from when he was the laughing stock of the House of Commons.
I'd certainly be interested in seeing a Liberal government, but I'm not convinced it would be quite as wonderful and different as they'd like you to believe. I think the first couple of years with them in power would be fascinating to watch, but I suspect somewhat painful to live through as they learnt what it is they were doing. Considering my (current) dislike of labour I do worry how likely they are to side with labour considering how many of their MP's have said they'd never work with a Conservative government. Then again as Bath is likely to go Lib Dem again, it would be nice to have someone with the political clout that comes from being part of the ruling party for a local MP - getting the DfT to accept possible alternatives to Newbridge bus lane would be nice, sadly right now it's the Council does it and has the money or doesn't and won't. Another example of why I think overly controlling centralist governments don't work.
The other parties:
Let's be honest nationally they matter little, as I live in neither Scotland or Wales, and in Bath they've not got a chance anyway. So I'm just not going to spend the time looking at them as I don't think I can spare it. Even if perhaps I feel I should somewhat.
The major issues:
It's now almost 3am, so these may not be the most salient statements. They'll also be relatively brief.
Education:
I feel that everyone should have access to good quality education, and that things need to be done to get parents to care. Ignorance must not be allowed to continue to breed. Discipline in schools, and a general loss of respect for authority is an issue that needs to be challenged. Ultimately though we need better systems to measure the quality of the education pupils get. All we have at the moment is a measure of how good schools are preparing students for exams, that a completely different ball park to teaching them how to learn.
I don't think setting an arbitrary goal for people to go to university is wise, the system should allow those who it would suit to get there regardless of background, not try and stick everyone there regardless. A sea of mediocre graduates with degrees born from three years of heavy drinking does no one any good. There needs to be better emphasis on other career paths too, you can't build an economy purely on intellectuals. Removing the cost barrier therefore has to be a key factor in any higher education policy.
Immigration
We're all migrants, but as a country we're better because of that. However I think immigration itself is badly handled, there's not anywhere near enough effort made to integrate people into society. There's also got to be some form of control on the process so that the infrastructure can be put into place where it's needed. It should also be made harder generally across the EU for criminal elements to work across borders - not sure that's possible though. There needs to be debate and it needs to be wrested away from the tabloid press, otherwise all we'll get is ignorance and ill feeling.
The young
I think we need sociality major changes with regards to our young. I'm not sure how, but it feels like the old attention we pay them is negative and our society is geared at getting them to be adult ASAP to avoid having to deal with them as kids, and we all know that neither of those work out well.
The elderly
We're all going to live longer, we seem to hope, and so we want everyone to have a good quality of life till the end. Still as a society I think we need to change our expectations of retirement. I don't think carrying on the way we are is going to be sustainable. Ultimately as with the young people it's all about respect, and the debate too much seems centred on dealing with the elderly as a burden.
Diversity, inclusion and equality:
Simply put everyone should be treated equally. Positive discrimination should not be necessary. I think this will always be an endless uphill struggle, but hopefully one in which the higher reaches are more pleasant than the path gone before.
Climate change
Something will have to give, because as much as we would all like it to I doubt science is going to rescue us completely in time. It's a shame though we've put everything on hold, because we're going to be struggling to try and keep ourselves at our current base line, let alone improving things. I think nuclear power is an acceptable risk considering the factors involved, but unless we move quickly we're not going to be generating enough power for the country. I certainly don't think green technology will get there fast enough, nor do I think we've had anywhere near enough debate about how much of our environment we're willing to damage or destroy to preserve the greater majority of it (e.g. the Severn tidal barrage).
Transport:
While our public transport infrastructure is in such a bad over priced state you're simply not going to get rid of the car. Though I expect the kind of infrastructure this country needs is very much at odds with the above issue. I do worry that the transport infrastructure is being ignored though as something that's doing a good enough job now while we worry about other things, and we'll ultimately pay a serious price for it. A bit like we treated the Victorian sewers in large parts of the country.
The digital economy
Is a mess, but things are still be shaken out. Hopefully we can avoid any more stupid laws on the issue though.
Electoral reform:
Is needed badly. The system is too open to gerrymandering and renders a large percentage of the voting population mute. However what we need is some system that still results in some sort of clearly defined ruling government, or a major change in the largely uncooperative attitudes of the political parties. An elected House of Lords would be nice, but I don't want the House of Commons part 2. It's good to have a balancing force to ensure greater debate and scrutiny in our political system. I have no idea how to achieve any of that or what would be a good solution for those problems.
Nuclear armament
I think it's important we remain a nuclear armed country, but purely because it allows us to stay part of an exclusive club of countries and keeps us punching above our weight on the world stage. I'm not sure Trident 2 is the way to go, but nor do I think we can leave ourselves at a build it if we find we need it stage either.
Europe
Generally I'm pro Europe as Mark Mardell put it as his last article as the BBC EU correspondent:
"If the EU is constantly, sometimes irritatingly, seeking out new ways of making itself relevant it is because it has so successfully completed its original mission: to keep the peace after more than a century of war. An achievement so obvious, that it’s pocketed without a thought by all the millions of citizens of this unique organisation."
The problem with the EU is it's members simply don't think of themselves as European first and foremost, instead each countries primary focus it's itself. I'll also have concerns that due to the size and money involved corruption is probably fairly endemic. Hopefully this will change in time for the better. Until it does I don't think we should be more jointly tied to the EU, we act as a good Atlantic political bridge after all, however we should be involved so we're not left out when it does finally get it's act together.
So yes that block above is my starting point, now to see where my research takes me. Clearly I have strong biases and need to do lots and lots of research. Here's hoping I'll have time.
Seeing as this is part 1, if you desire to share your political view point on anything, correct any factual inaccuracies or have any sources of information you really want me to look at please comment. The more I know the better. Assuming you managed to read the above of course.
The thing with me is I have an awful tendency to take the word of people who are more educated/informed than me about a subject as the truth*; rather than using it what I've been told as a starting point from which to research and form my opinion from. Then when discussing things as I have limited confidence in my own opinions (or no actual opinion of my own) I tend to present one of the things I have been told and test it against others. Partly I'm doing this to check the validity of the opinion when presented to others, but mostly because I'm just curious about how people think, and it's an excellent way to explore someone else's thought processes.
*My Maths degree doesn't help with that considering how it was taught.
For the sake of interest my plan is as follows: In this post firstly a few general points, then I'll note my current largely uninformed opinions of the current parties, and the member of the cabinet and shadow cabinets. Then discuss my current opinions on the major issues using
elmyra's list to ensure I don't miss anything. From there it'll go up in a second post where I'll go and do the research; looking at ministers voting records, working through each of the manifestos and discussing points I agree and disagree with (though sadly I won't be able to do it with the wit of the "Yes Minister" actor and writers interpretation of the manifestos as broadcast on News Night in the last couple of weeks). Finally I'll present based on the above who I think I should vote for.Right the rest will be behind cut tags for sake of all your friends pages.
Before I begin
Before all that a few things worth stating:
- Given a choice my ideal form of government is Benevolent Omnipotent/Omniscient Dictatorship. Of course that's not an option.
- Failing that I'd at least go for the opportunity to select my fantasy cabinet, cherry picking the best of each party and ditching the dross.
- That at the end of the day the problem with democracy is everyone else. No matter how much research I'll do mine is only one vote among millions and though at best I might slightly improve the overall level of intelligent thought going into this election the difference will be ultimately insignificant.
- The "first past the post" system means the only choices here are Tory or Liberal. If I much to my surprise find out that I do have reasons to vote Labour it would be irrelevant here anyway. Though while I will go in with as open a mind as possible (or at least with conscience mind to my biases), I admit I consider that outcome to be unlikely.
- I've lost all patience with lifetime voters of any party. If the choices are 'Party A' or 'Don't Vote', or worse yet just 'Party A' then that's doing democracy wrong. Just to be clear I understand the need for party political activists, but if there's no conceivable answer to the question "What would make you not vote for Party A" then that opinion doesn't matter. Party loyalty should be earned, it should be deserved and should be losable. All the political parties get away with too much, too many politicians are effectively untouchable thanks to party stronghold seats, places where the populace are incapable of voting for anything other than one party. Party political activists should be both about promoting their party and holding their party to account to the ideals it is supposed to espouse; I wonder how many of them really think to do the latter. At the very least it would be nice if all voters remembered that the party on offer now, may well be radically different to the party when they first decided for or against them regardless of their unchanging name.
- The expenses scandal really wasn't an issue for me. The public sector generally for a long long time had a system of allowances, not expenses. The difference: an allowance is something you get until you don't use it, an expense is something you can reclaim back the cost of. Therefore of course you had politicians claiming for everything under the sun, that's the culture allowances create, because if you don't do it, lose the allowance and then need it the next year, your stuffed. Now those who did behave illegally, and were investigated by the police was something else entirely. Still it's good the system is being changed, but the media driven fury behind it wasn't proportionate to the event.
- Be wary of any party talking about cancelling projects to save money. Most contracts with governments have protection clauses - because projects tend to run longer than parliaments do. These protection clauses tend to say that if the project is cancelled the government pays for all the work done to date, and typically the total value of all expected profits the company thought it would make from that project. So cancelling a project can be a very expensive way to get nothing, hopefully cheaper than paying to get it finished though.
- I think a hung parliament will do some serious damage to this country for the year or so it lasts before the next election. I also think it's mostly inevitable. However I hope though that it as an outcome will reshape the political landscape from the current 2 and a bit system and also spell the end of a few particularly rubbish MPs careers; thereby being better for the country in the long run. Why do I think a hung parliament will be terrible? Our party politics is too adversarial generally, as are our unions*, a weak parliament will allow influential bodies - the rich, the unions, companies, etc to maintain their preferred bits of the current state of play. The smaller parties, particularly the national ones are also a problem with this, last night listening to Any Questions One of the SNP SMP's said how important it was for everyone in a balanced party to behave responsibly which is why it was important the SNP got as many seats as possible so they could protect Scotland from any cuts. In a situation where the UK as a whole has to make major cuts how exactly is saying you're going to do all you can to ensure Scotland gets no cuts behaving responsibly?
*Thatcher might have castrated the unions in the 80s, but she certainly didn't change any of the inherent short sighted selfish union attitudes that got her into power in the first place. Seriously look at BA, if BA goes under they've all lost their jobs and so what do they do when the company is trying to do things to survive and reorganise as it's traditional market no longer exists? They go on strike and make it even worse off. Unions are useful and important, essential even, I just wish when things got bad the ones in this country were much more about how can we ensure the security of as many jobs as possible by helping the company survive/improve rather than what can we do to avoid losing any of our jobs/perks regardless of the consequences.
Initial Bias
I freely admit the following is biased and not always particularly informed. I do plan to check these statements as much as possible for the next section in part 2.
First a bit about my origins to ground my political view points:
My father and his parents came to this country as British refugees of the Suez Canal War, while my grandparents were wealthy in Egypt (my grandfather owned his own painting business, my grandmother was a lady of leisure as I understand it) they obviously couldn't take much with them. My father was four and couldn't speak English when he came to this country. He grew up mostly in East London and worked up from the bottom classes in a rough school, into a better one, and eventually to being one of four people passed the degree in Biochemistry from the City of London University, he has and continues to works too hard every day.
My mother grew up in a council flat in Highbury. Her father came over from Ireland in the Second World War to work filling the holes bombed by the Luftwaffe in our runways. He worked most of his life as a postman, my nan didn't work until later in life when she worked as a dinner lady in a local school.
I grew up in the city of Bath, in a nice house, went to a RC primary school, and a RC comprehensive; I never considered going to a private school. I have all these things, and an excellent start in life because of how hard my parents and grandparents have worked, and I'm grateful I don't need to work anywhere near as hard as a result.
I've definitely grown up middle class child. I think I still self identify as British and find nationalism strange. I always find inequality slightly jarring because I was raised to treat everyone equally with respect, to not prejudge (though I fail at that) and trust others to the point they have just enough rope to hang themselves with. I respect my father a great deal. I consider myself to be incredibly lucky to be born to my parents in this country and never believe I'll be grateful enough of that fact.
I believe in the importance of education, that luck is something you make, and that feelings of self entitlement get you no where. I despair at the applauding of ignorance, and of blind fanaticism about anything.
In summary here's the political opinions I've grown up with:
Thatcher: Terrible
Major: Really quite good actually.
Blair: Slimey + Rubbish
Brown: Disaster.
(I gather they liked and voted for James Callaghan)
Locally they've had a dim opinion of Don Foster because I gather he was a bit rubbish at first. Then again he was following Chris Patten who went on to become Governor of Hong Kong during the handover to the Chinese, and then European Commissioner. Very much a real statesman and so inevitable a hard act for anyone to follow. These days sounds like he's quite good at his job, which I'd hope he would be after 18 years of doing it. I think I have perhaps changed my parents opinion of him, not that there in his constituency any more (boundary changes at some point I believe).
So the parties:
Labour:
As the incumbent party I have a hard time believing any talk of reform from them; they're certainly not going to put forward reforms that worsen their electoral position. Considering some of the majorities they've had in the last thirteen years if they've not been capable of doing it by now, I can't see them being capable of doing it in the next parliament. I also find it a bit rich the talk of how bad the unelected House of Lords is when we've had an effectively unelected Prime Minister and unelected members of the cabinet (Lords Mandelson and Sugar).
I don't understand why people believe they have a good record on the economy. From my understanding of it the last 13 years could be summed up with:
Year 1: Even tighter version of the Tory get out of recession spending plan, join in global relaxing of banking regulation, start talking about "No more boom and bust" (hah!). Also started taxing pension funds (pay attention) and raise other taxes.*
Year 2: See Year 1
Year 3: Begin to spend likes there's no tomorrow. Start selling gold at lowest possible price. More tax increases.
Year 4: As year 3 continuing gold selling. More tax increases.*
Year 5: Lots of spending, finish gold selling, start to borrow. More tax increases.
Year 6: Lots more spending, continue to borrow. More tax increases.
Year 7 - 11: Like year 6 with yet more borrowing. (Year 8 - Pensions Crisis becomes big news, I wonder if the tax on pensions those last 8 years might have made it worse...)
Year 12: Banking Crisis! Oh noes so much debt!
Year 13: Appears to be reasonable handling of recession, considering awful starting position as a result of previous years economic policy. The much slower than most everyone else climb out of recession just shows how bad a position we started off in.
*NB A little research was done to confirm my figures and I noted how both the '97 and '01 manifestos promised no tax rises, interestingly it appears pre budget reports before the three last elections generally result in tax reductions, followed by tax rises in the post election budget.
Here's the thing the banking crisis was ultimately a result of the deregulation of banks, something with Brown has admitted he made a mistake on. However equally so the good years were primarily a result of good global economic times. I've heard some convincing arguments that governments actually have little real impact on the global economy, though personally I'd argue what they can do and do do is affect how much a country benefits from the good times, and how vulnerable it is to the bad times. Brown did do fairly well on the former (by hitching the economy to the banking sector), but at a cost of making the inevitable bad period much worse for us. However the Labour tune has been all "the good years were all because of us" and at the same time "the bad times are totally not our fault, it's the global economic situation". From my point of view if you're going to use absolutes (and you really shouldn't) you get one or the other either the good years were all their success, and therefore the bad time is all their failure. Or the bad time is all the global economic situations fault and the good times were also thanks to the global economic situation.
I also know that the NHS could have been in a much better state than it is now, had the government got around to the right ideas sooner. Massively increasing spending, but then using it mostly on wage increases which while needed weren't exactly a thought through improvement plan. I haven't forgotten the waiting lists to get on waiting lists that were an early Labour scandal. Sadly Frank Dobson was a disaster, undoing a lot of the good that was coming in just before the election, and it's taken 13 years to get back to the same state.
For example in '96 GP groups were looking at creating day surgeries; these specialise in treatments with low recovery time - for example you can do a cataract operation in which the patient can be in and our in the same day, compared to a weeks recovery in bed using traditional approaches. The advantages are obvious higher turn around using less beds meaning you do more treatments at less overall cost. When Labour came in '97 these were all scrapped as power was taken from GPs and consolidated centrally, last year they started making noises about doing it again. The fact they were using the same figures from the reports my father wrote back in '94 and '95 , a 13-14 year delay, is one clear example of how much better the NHS could have been if things had been different.
Now of the major changes they've made here are the good, bad and neutral ones that I'm aware of, I fully plan to investigate more when I get to the actual research part of this:
Good
Smoking Ban
Afghanistan
Minimum wage
Neutral:
Fox hunting ban
Bad
Iraq - one war at a time please.
Anti-Terrorist legislation.
Tuition fees
I'd also like to mention all the various enquiries we had particularly during the Blair years which cleared the government far too thoroughly to be credible.
So yeah I really can't think of much, more research needed here definitely.
On the cabinet the ones whose names actually mean anything to me:
Gordon Brown - First and foremost he's a liar, an admitted one. He's lied to a parliamentary committee, he's repeatedly lied about tax raises. I've seen no evidence beyond the recent recession (and that's too early to judge) to suggest he's actually been any good as a Chancellor. Actually going back to the Chilcot enquiry choosing to not know anything about the Iraq War as the fricking chancellor of the exchequer is more damning than just being misinformed and supporting a bad war (assuming you believe his line of course). He also can't answer questions provided to him at all, he can however read repeatedly from an internal script very well. I like to suspect and I'm curious to verify whether or not the the size of the housing market bubble was so large because Brown had been driving the economy to ensure it looked good when he became PM, but it hadn't much later than planned because Blair was having too much fun being a limpet. The debates really didn't alter my opinion of him.
David Miliband - very very slimey, and completely inappropriate choice for Foreign Secretary as he just doesn't know how to be a statesman. Feels too much like he's trying to position himself as the next party leader, and spent time studying how Blair got in. If things go badly and Brown gets ousted* expect Miliband to be a forerunner to replace him.
*Which would be marvellous.
Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper - I don't know much about them except that they're married. For some indiscernible reason I find this to be a totally unacceptable state for two members of cabinet. I can't articulate why it just feels wrong.
Jack Straw - I like. He made a much better Foreign Secretary than Miliband. He just strikes me as much more honest than the others. I'd have him in my fantasy cabinet possibly as Foreign Secretary, but I'm not convinced he'd work well with some of the other choices.
Alistair Darling - I mostly feel sorry for him. I think if he'd been allowed to be Chancellor without being under Brown's thumb he'd being doing a much better job. Would probably have him in my fantasy cabinet.
Peter Mandelson - I find him to be completely disingenuous, he's fallen out of favour and clambered back in to favour a surprising number of times. I can't shake the feeling he's purely out for himself, and will back whoever he think we'll keep him in power.
Of the above people I dislike let me put it like this, if Labour's entire campaign was 'Vote for us and we won't let any of them near Westminster let along government again' I'd actually vote for them. Of the rest I just really don't know anything about them. Looking at again I am glad that Blears, Prescott and Smith are gone from the cabinet in the former and politics in the latter. On the other hand I thought Cook was a good one, and his death was a real shame.
Overall I wouldn't call New Labour a socialist party, because it's not been since it was designed. What it is is a sit in the centre ground and get itself elected into power party. The blatant borrowing of most of the actually good ideas the Tory's had over the last 13 years is one example of that. Also fighting an election on a campaign principle of change is scary so keep us hasn't done them any favours in my view. The only traditional labour thing they've done is centralise power and massively increase the size of the state. I'm never been convinced that centralised power with Whitehall dispatched directives is the correct way to run local services.
I also wish they'd had an actual spending review because then maybe we'd have some more details economic policies coming from the parties, rather than the wishy washy we can't really say yet stuff we've been currently getting.
I'm curious to see how research into their voting patterns and their manifesto and the policies they brought in over the last few years alters the above.
Conservatives:
I don't hold the innate hatred of the Conservatives that a lot of my social circle seem to. I agree that Thatcher was a terrible monster who did great damage, but ultimately she was a monster of the unions own creation. It's a shame that someone heartless was the one that was brought in to do what needed to be done. By the same note it's been 18 years, 2/3rds of my lifetime since she was in power, if it's not been long enough yet, when will it be?
It's been 13 years since they were in power and to be honest I was too young to really have formed an opinion about the government then, so this will be inevitable smaller than the above (thankfully).
David Cameron - My main concern is he's learnt from the Blairite school of politics all style, no substance. I'm not convinced he's make a good Prime minister. Listening to him on debates hasn't greatly changed my view. Though I be inclined to say give him a few more years, and see what's he like then.
William Hague - I don't think he's as bad as the press made him out to be when he was party leader. Seems to have a fairly sensible head on his shoulders, if not a particularly interesting one. Would want him on my fantasy cabinet somewhere, I think.
George Osbourne - I'm unconvinced he's cut out to be Chancellor, I just don't think he's got the write mentality for the job. Feels too much like a mouth piece for other people than someone with his own opinions.
Ken Clarke - I've not heard him say anything I disagree with, if I could have anyone as chancellor it would be him, hell I'd happily have him as PM. Though apparently according to my parents he was a moron in the 70's, but that just shows people can get better with time. Always comes across as affable and straight. Considering what the current state of things is straight politicians are definitely in demand now.
Liam Fox - has never particularly impressed, but I haven't seen much of him really.
And of the rest, none of them mean anything to me, and it's what 4 days now before the election?
Locally I've spoken to Fabian Richter when he came to my door. He's a naturalised German though no trace of an accent there, and didn't come across particularly as an idiot. What I found interesting is he's clearly got some knowledge of local politics and was quick to try and squash some of the less favourable rumours I've heard about him as Lib Dem lies. I need to look into him in more detail, but I've not written him off yet, I would need to find a fair bit to convince me about him though. Most interesting quote I had from him when chatting to him though, "Given a choice between a hung parliament and a large labour majority, I'd take the Labour majority hands down." or something close to that anyway.
I don't think a conservative government would be all bad, nor do I think it would be that good; though I think they could do a better job of things than the current government, but then again considering what I think of the current government that wouldn't be hard. I'm expecting to find some nasty surprises among their election manifesto when I study it.
Liberal Democrats:
Well firstly I miss Paddy Ashdown. I'd have no problems voting Lib Dem if he was in charge; though all parties are really lacking in good calibre politicians. Charles Kennedy in comparison never came across as someone who could handle leadership, and I think time bore that out. I think much like the Tories there are some policies I agree with and some I disagree with but I've not explored that in enough depth with either of them to really see who I agree with more. My ever present concern with the Liberal Democrats is they're at just the right size where they can be populists without worrying too much about how they've had to make it work when their in charge.
Nick Clegg - still feels a bit lacking as a potential Prime Minister, but has impressed in the leadership debates. At the very least he's the one who cottoned on fastest that this it's not parliamentary questions, and point scoring for the sake of point scoring won't go down as well. I'd stick him somewhere on my fantasy cabinet. Wasn't impressed with wife coming out to make the political statement that she wasn't going to come out and make political statements. The actions of the other candidates wives was more blatant and unnecessary, but I doubt she was so naive so as not to know what she was doing.
Vince Cable - as acting leader he really didn't impress me, as chancellor he certainly has he background for it. However I worry he's a bit too much of a jaded ex-banker and the inherent biases affect his judgement. I'm also concerned that he's struggles too much when taken out of his comfort zone considering the role he's playing.
Don Foster - I don't know much about him, but others speak highly of his voting records. He's clearly become a good local MP from what I hear, but then again he wouldn't still be here if it hadn't, and considering as a Lib Dem he's not had much influence over the years in parliament I'd expect him to become a strong local voice. Basically I don't know much, other than he's come a long way from when he was the laughing stock of the House of Commons.
I'd certainly be interested in seeing a Liberal government, but I'm not convinced it would be quite as wonderful and different as they'd like you to believe. I think the first couple of years with them in power would be fascinating to watch, but I suspect somewhat painful to live through as they learnt what it is they were doing. Considering my (current) dislike of labour I do worry how likely they are to side with labour considering how many of their MP's have said they'd never work with a Conservative government. Then again as Bath is likely to go Lib Dem again, it would be nice to have someone with the political clout that comes from being part of the ruling party for a local MP - getting the DfT to accept possible alternatives to Newbridge bus lane would be nice, sadly right now it's the Council does it and has the money or doesn't and won't. Another example of why I think overly controlling centralist governments don't work.
The other parties:
Let's be honest nationally they matter little, as I live in neither Scotland or Wales, and in Bath they've not got a chance anyway. So I'm just not going to spend the time looking at them as I don't think I can spare it. Even if perhaps I feel I should somewhat.
The major issues:
It's now almost 3am, so these may not be the most salient statements. They'll also be relatively brief.
Education:
I feel that everyone should have access to good quality education, and that things need to be done to get parents to care. Ignorance must not be allowed to continue to breed. Discipline in schools, and a general loss of respect for authority is an issue that needs to be challenged. Ultimately though we need better systems to measure the quality of the education pupils get. All we have at the moment is a measure of how good schools are preparing students for exams, that a completely different ball park to teaching them how to learn.
I don't think setting an arbitrary goal for people to go to university is wise, the system should allow those who it would suit to get there regardless of background, not try and stick everyone there regardless. A sea of mediocre graduates with degrees born from three years of heavy drinking does no one any good. There needs to be better emphasis on other career paths too, you can't build an economy purely on intellectuals. Removing the cost barrier therefore has to be a key factor in any higher education policy.
Immigration
We're all migrants, but as a country we're better because of that. However I think immigration itself is badly handled, there's not anywhere near enough effort made to integrate people into society. There's also got to be some form of control on the process so that the infrastructure can be put into place where it's needed. It should also be made harder generally across the EU for criminal elements to work across borders - not sure that's possible though. There needs to be debate and it needs to be wrested away from the tabloid press, otherwise all we'll get is ignorance and ill feeling.
The young
I think we need sociality major changes with regards to our young. I'm not sure how, but it feels like the old attention we pay them is negative and our society is geared at getting them to be adult ASAP to avoid having to deal with them as kids, and we all know that neither of those work out well.
The elderly
We're all going to live longer, we seem to hope, and so we want everyone to have a good quality of life till the end. Still as a society I think we need to change our expectations of retirement. I don't think carrying on the way we are is going to be sustainable. Ultimately as with the young people it's all about respect, and the debate too much seems centred on dealing with the elderly as a burden.
Diversity, inclusion and equality:
Simply put everyone should be treated equally. Positive discrimination should not be necessary. I think this will always be an endless uphill struggle, but hopefully one in which the higher reaches are more pleasant than the path gone before.
Climate change
Something will have to give, because as much as we would all like it to I doubt science is going to rescue us completely in time. It's a shame though we've put everything on hold, because we're going to be struggling to try and keep ourselves at our current base line, let alone improving things. I think nuclear power is an acceptable risk considering the factors involved, but unless we move quickly we're not going to be generating enough power for the country. I certainly don't think green technology will get there fast enough, nor do I think we've had anywhere near enough debate about how much of our environment we're willing to damage or destroy to preserve the greater majority of it (e.g. the Severn tidal barrage).
Transport:
While our public transport infrastructure is in such a bad over priced state you're simply not going to get rid of the car. Though I expect the kind of infrastructure this country needs is very much at odds with the above issue. I do worry that the transport infrastructure is being ignored though as something that's doing a good enough job now while we worry about other things, and we'll ultimately pay a serious price for it. A bit like we treated the Victorian sewers in large parts of the country.
The digital economy
Is a mess, but things are still be shaken out. Hopefully we can avoid any more stupid laws on the issue though.
Electoral reform:
Is needed badly. The system is too open to gerrymandering and renders a large percentage of the voting population mute. However what we need is some system that still results in some sort of clearly defined ruling government, or a major change in the largely uncooperative attitudes of the political parties. An elected House of Lords would be nice, but I don't want the House of Commons part 2. It's good to have a balancing force to ensure greater debate and scrutiny in our political system. I have no idea how to achieve any of that or what would be a good solution for those problems.
Nuclear armament
I think it's important we remain a nuclear armed country, but purely because it allows us to stay part of an exclusive club of countries and keeps us punching above our weight on the world stage. I'm not sure Trident 2 is the way to go, but nor do I think we can leave ourselves at a build it if we find we need it stage either.
Europe
Generally I'm pro Europe as Mark Mardell put it as his last article as the BBC EU correspondent:
"If the EU is constantly, sometimes irritatingly, seeking out new ways of making itself relevant it is because it has so successfully completed its original mission: to keep the peace after more than a century of war. An achievement so obvious, that it’s pocketed without a thought by all the millions of citizens of this unique organisation."
The problem with the EU is it's members simply don't think of themselves as European first and foremost, instead each countries primary focus it's itself. I'll also have concerns that due to the size and money involved corruption is probably fairly endemic. Hopefully this will change in time for the better. Until it does I don't think we should be more jointly tied to the EU, we act as a good Atlantic political bridge after all, however we should be involved so we're not left out when it does finally get it's act together.
So yes that block above is my starting point, now to see where my research takes me. Clearly I have strong biases and need to do lots and lots of research. Here's hoping I'll have time.
Seeing as this is part 1, if you desire to share your political view point on anything, correct any factual inaccuracies or have any sources of information you really want me to look at please comment. The more I know the better. Assuming you managed to read the above of course.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-03 04:54 pm (UTC)I would like to make one point on Trident. I used to be pro-British nuclear armament for very similar reasons to the ones you've stated, but I recently got to thinking about it and there are some very good reasons not to replace it.
1) It's against the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Britain is a signatory. We may only be replacing an old system, but part of the treaty is not to build new weapons and to make efforts to disarm whenever possible. I don't see how Britain can possibly maintain a bullish international stance on countries developing WMD when they do not abide by the same treaty that they wave at other nations. It renders any attempt to baulk nuclear proliferation in countries like Iran and North Korea as foolish and hypocritical and gives propaganda ammunition to groups that hate us.
A better strategy for our international standing is to make it a political stance and announce that we are committed to disarmament and will not be rearming for pointless bravado. It would give us legitimacy to talk with 'rogue' states that no other Tier 1 nation has.
2) Who are we possibly going to use them against? The most likely cause of a nuclear attack is a terrorist group, who cannot be nuked back. This is ignoring the colossal irony that having a Trident replacement would make us more likely to be nuked (breaking the NNPT makes us more of a 'legitimate target' and the traditional one of more weapons meaning a higher likelihood of a terrorist getting their hands on one).
In the highly unlikely event of another nation attacking Britain with nuclear weapons, it is inconceivable that the international community would not act in retribution. And retribution would be all that it would be, rather than defence. It is entirely possible for two well-placed and decent-sized nuclear weapons to render Britain uninhabitable for several years.
3) We're (hopefully) coming out of a fairly decent recession and the various parties are scrapping over savings of 15bn here and 10bn there. Trident-2 would cost 100bn. I'm not sure spending that money is the right way to go.
PJW
no subject
Date: 2010-05-04 06:47 pm (UTC)Still the point of being nuclear armed isn't about using them, it's purely about being part of the club. Ultimately it's about struggling to matter on the world stage as the dying embers of an old empire.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-03 11:16 pm (UTC)PJW
no subject
Date: 2010-05-04 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 06:11 pm (UTC)Typical -_-;