Empty Thoughts From Empty Minds

Chasing The Dragon

2010-04-22T14:01:00.000-07:00

Positively influencing the political system is one of those things so desirable, yet so elusive, that to do so seems an unreal task. Despite that, when thinking about change, sometimes, on the rarest of occasions, you start to think that ideas you know will never happen, might actually happen. Once you have that first thought, it is hard to stop yourself from thinking that if you do something, the chance of achieving the outcome you desire will increase. Then you actually do something. Then nothing changes. As time goes on, the motivation to do something is rare.

I remember the first time I thought I could help change a political decision. I was seventeen, and Britain was about to go to war with Iraq. I was one of the million people that marched against it. I had my own home-made banner, sporting the slogan "Who would Jesus bomb?". I was so overawed by the whole spectacle, so certain that the government had to respond the expressions of outrage that the march represented, and so sure that none could stand before the wit of my placard that I have never really recovered the same optimism that I had back then.

In the ever constant search by addicts to recreate their first opium high, I see a somewhat similar reaction. The first time you take it, the effect of the drug is so blissful and euphoric that when it ends you can do nothing but strive to repeat the sensation. Then comes the downside. No matter how many times you take the drug, or how much you take of it, that feeling is never recaptured, never emulated and the desire to satiate your appetite remains forever unsatisfied. This feeling is commonly called chasing the dragon.

In political terms, the dragon represents all of the goals that seem futile - a balanced press, a representative parliament, political and economic reform and all the rest. People have chased it before. In 1997, the entire country celebrated, thinking that they had finally caught it. Too late did we realise that the dragon we followed was an illusion, and that the real thing still eluded us. Somehow, in the last year, events have conspired to mean that things may change. Since the leadership debate, people are beginning to realise that this time, we may not only have the tools to begin the chase, but to end it.

The tool itself? A vote for the Liberal Democrats.

To understand why you must consider a number of factors. The first of these is that the political system in the United Kingdom is fundamentally broken. We live in a representative democracy that fails to represent all of it's citizens. The clearest example of this is in the electoral process. It is no secret that we function under an imbalanced First Past the Post system, and it has been known for years that whilst not the fairest way of electing a government, it provides stability. However, over the course of years, the system has warped from what it once was into an electoral black hole, that ensures the electability of the two main parties at the expense of all else. The evidence of this been growing steadily with each election, and is clearly highlighted when you look at the disparity of votes compared to seats.

This has been one of the contributing factors towards the political apathy that seems to exist in this country. People know that their vote will not be counted, and that the logical conclusion of this is that their views will not be represented. The turnout for general elections has dipped significantly since 1997. Before then, average turnout of the electorate was steady at about 75% since the 50s. In the last two elections, the turnout struggled to reach 60%.

Reasons for this lull have been numerous, and, in most cases, incorrect. It is not that the British people are lazy, or that they do not want to engage in the political system. It is not even that people see the pointlessness in voting. The reason is resoundingly clear, people don't vote because they don't think anything will change. Up until now, you could argue that those people might have been right. No longer.

The expenses scandal heralded the first sign that there could be an actual change. For the first time, the idea that politicians actively work the system for their personal benefit, rather than the benefit of their constituents became a known fact, rather than a paranoid delusion. The apathy and isolation felt by the British voter gave way to justified and righteous anger. No politician was left untouched by the corruption that they had been wallowing in. The fact that it hit in the middle of a recession just added to the public's disgust. The press couldn't get over their good fortune. They talked of a possible constitutional crisis, and in doing so, ensured that people started staring out in to the sky again, hoping for a glimpse of a shadow that never comes.

The politicians still fail to realise that the anger expressed over the expenses scandal wasn't to do with the expenses at all. It was to do with the way they had encouraged the alienation of the public to politics, whilst lacking the transparency, honesty and integrity that are the basic expectations of those who hold public office. All of the calls for reform that the party leaders had made at the start of the scandal slowly morphed in to expenses reform, before fading away as the run-up to the election began.

In the mire of the political back and forth that always accompanies the election. The Conservatives astounding lead over Labour closed as people began to realise the futility of the situation. The choice on offer was abysmal. A highly unpopular government with an abysmal record or a group of sycophants with nothing to offer the electorate than the fact that they were not the unpopular government. The usual tricks were pulled. The Conservative press called the election months beforehand, and as the lead between Cameron and Brown dropped, the attacks came out in force. Brown was a bully, who didn't even have the decency to spell the name of a deceased soldier correctly in a letter to his mother, who continued to support the infringement of civil liberties begun by Tony Blair. A supporter and proponent of unjust wars and unpopular policies. Cameron was blind to the machinations of Lord Ashcroft, he allied himself with homophobes and xenophobes in Europe, proved himself economically deficient by opposing Labour's plans for dealing with the recession along with a host of other deficiencies .

In the midst of all the mud raking, a seemingly inconsequential decision was made to have a series of televised debates between the three leaders. The outcome of that debate was a change so unexpected that people are still struggling to understand what it means. Whilst the debate itself was boring, verging on tedious, it allowed the British public to see something it had never had a chance to see before. Stood before them was a man who had three things going for him. He was not Labour or Conservative, he did not seem to be an idiot and, most importantly of all, he just said what he honestly thought. And some of it made sense.

This is not to say that the Liberal Democrats do not have their faults. They do, and some of them are glaring. But, for the first time in living memory, people had another choice, and the effect was sensational. Which brings us, inexorably and overwhelmingly, to the reasons why you should vote Liberal Democrat on May 6th over any other party, regardless of constituency and regardless of policy.

The first reason to vote Liberal Democrat is the effect that their poll boost has had on the right wing media. The broadsheets were happy to hold fire, thinking the impact of the debate to be a blip. The tabloids carried on as usual, expounding their normal narrative. When more polls came in, and it was clear that the Lib Dems had maintained their popularity, the tables turned. The attack they launched on Clegg would have been devastating, had it not been so pathetic.

The Mail's 'Nazi Slur' turned out to be an 8 year old, and rather astutely written article, arguing that Britain needs to ditch the stereotypical view it holds of Germany. The Sun and Express went with stories so nonsensical that reading them offended both the reader's intelligence and the written language. The Telegraph, meanwhile, went with a rather more wholesome story about how Clegg had received a paltry amount of money as a private donation to hire a researcher, which he registered in the member of interests, with every penny being entirely accounted for. A high crime indeed.

The reason for all of this is clear. The likes of Rupert Murdoch are deadly afraid of the possibilities that the Liberal Democrats bring to the election. Murdoch's continued financial success relies on a close relationship with the governing party. For the entirety of his ownership of Newscorp, the Lib Dems will not even have made a blip on his radar. If they get even close to power, they will have done so without him, and the effect will leave him politically neutered. He is scared of this. The Independent have been running a campaign encouraging people to vote with the goal of denying Murdoch the privilege of deciding the election. His son was so taken aback by this, that he entered the offices of The Independent uninvited and unannounced, and went on to reprimand the Editor. Allowing the bullying and aggressive business dealings they follow to spill over in to their personal lives shows just how desperate they are. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote against a man who does not live in Britain yet owns 40% of the press, and nefariously uses his influence on the political infrastructure.

The second reason to vote Lib Dem is that if they are involved in a coalition government, it would guarantee a number of positive things. That Vince Cable, the least economically deficient of the potential chancellors will be in charge of the countries finances. If they form a government with Labour, all of the cutting of civil liberties that Labour continue to push (I.D cards, sentence without trial etc), will be stopped due to a lack of consensus. If they join with the Conservatives, the proposed inheritance tax cuts, along with other ridiculous Conservative policies (X-Factor for schoolkids, anyone?) will be stopped. It also means that whatever government is formed will not be able to press ahead as single-handedly and blooded-mindedly as they seem so eager to do.

The third reason to vote Lib Dem is because if you do, you will make your vote count in a way that it might never have the chance to do again. I admit, they will not be able to win the election. Whilst this in itself is a strange admission to make when I am urging you to vote for a party, it is through not fault of their own, and should bolster, rather than detract from the argument. Due to the deficiencies in the electoral system mentioned earlier, even if the Lib Dems were to gain an equal number of votes as the Conservative party, as predicted by the most recent IPSOS-MORI poll, they would not gain an equal number of seats.

Indeed, hoping for a Liberal Democrat win seems fairly futile when you realise that they may need 40% of the popular vote to pull in a small majority, a feat so spectacular that to dream of it is madness. Despite this, voting Liberal Democrat, and them not winning, means that there is an opportunity for electoral reform. If the Lib Dems end up with the largest percentage of the popular vote, regardless of the outcome, there will have to be electoral reform. You simply cannot keep a system that blocks the most popular party from forming a government. It would be an inevitability, and the momentum for change that was lost with the expenses scandal will be unstoppable.

Electoral reform would, quite literally, mean a change for everything. The possibilities of introducing either the Alternative Vote system, or actual proportional representation would have profound and meaningful repercussions. The Lords could finally become elected. The voting system reformed to allow minorities have a say. Representation that is based around people rather than politics. An end to gutter journalism. An actual constitution. The removal of private and business interests in the running of government. An end to two party politics. Real help for the disadvantaged. A closing of the incredible wealth disparity between the rich and the poor. And the cherry on the already heaving cake, a possible end to all Conservative majority governments. Forever.

A dream, you may say, but that is what a vote for the Liberal Democrats entails. It is not about policy, it is about possibility, and the possibilities that stem from voting for the Liberal Democrats are more numerous and advantageous than doing anything else with your vote. So if you agree with me I urge you, send this to everyone you know. Link it, facebook it, digg it, twitter it, email it, print it off and force people to read it, and get them to do the same. This may be one of the few times when doing something might achieve an outcome that isn't nothing, and that has to be worth 30 minutes.

The only way to fix politics is to first break it completely and utterly. The only way to do that, is to chase a dragon.

Vote Liberal Democrat on May 6th.

Why shouldn't I vote for the Conservative party?

2010-04-09T07:53:00.000-07:00

Why not to vote Conservative? It's a question that is so obvious to me that I constantly fail to grasp why others cannot fail to see the answers. It's easy to point to their history, and fling the nasty party accusations around. Despite my own belief that they are essentially the same party they always were, it's far easier to look at what they are doing and saying now, to understand why you shouldn't vote for them.

First, you can look at what might have been different if they had been in power for the last 13 years. All of the most unpopular decisions made are ones that were supported by the Conservatives, or would have been taken by them anyway. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Check. The continuation of said wars for a decade? Check. A failure to predict or heed warnings of an inevitable global economic crisis? Check. The continued privatisation of public services? Check. And then look at what actually has been done that we wouldn't have if there had been a conservative government. The minimum wage, the hunting ban, gay rights legislation, removal of hereditary peers.

You can object to that as speculation. Fine. Look at what they've actually done since David Cameron has been in charge. They've marginalised themselves in Europe, whilst at the same time allying with racists and homophobes. If they get in to power and remain in the ECR grouping of countries, then Britain will find itself ignored in the most important political grouping in the world, at a time when it desperately needs to be at the forefront of EU policymaking. All because of the idiocy of the Conservative leadership. The reason for this is obvious as well. The Conservative party harbours people with covert nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies. David Cameron has had to pander to those who hold these opinions (assuming he doesn't hold them himself), and in doing so, has shown us the hypocritical nature of the modern Conservative party.

Then there's the proposed tax breaks for the married. The concept of that itself is so ridiculous that I can't believe he was allowed to announce it. Nevermind the fact that it's a slap in the face to every person in the country who wishes to lead an alternative lifestyle to what is considered the norm, here is a man who actually thinks that he can impose his own social morality on an entire country.

There's 'Broken Britain'. A claim so ludicrous and polarising that I cannot wait to see the back of it. The way the Conservative party has twisted and spun a myriad of crime figures and statistics is disgusting. In an attempt to frighten the populace in to voting for a tougher stance on crime, the stance that the tories themselves just so happen to promote, they are willing to outright lie to the electorate, and then not correct themselves when their mistakes are pointed out.

The Conservative party itself has been beholden to one of the richest men in the world to support them, and then not only failed to question him over his unconfirmed tax status, but given him intimate access to foreign leaders, allowing him to further his business interests. On top of this, they have announced that no peer in the HoL should be non-domiciled, and, despite the revelations over Lord Ashcroft's tax status, have done nothing to correct it, or even confront him over it. One of the most influential men in the Conservative party, and indeed, in the country as a whole, is still non-domiciled. I don't want the next Prime Minister of this country to be another man who says one thing, and does another.

The recent debacle over gay rights has shown up Cameron's propensity to ignore the homophobia that exists within the Conservative party, and which he struggles to hide. He gives an interview to Gay Times saying he thinks gay people should have equal rights, then in the very same interview says that he would give a free vote on the issue. Then his Shadow Home Secretary comes out and actually says that there are situations in which somebody can be refused service based on their sexual orientation.

Then there's the inheritance tax. The Conservative party has actually announced a change to inheritance tax that will give £1.2 billion of tax back to the top 2% of earners in the entire country. They want to give tax breaks on pensions that will give £3.5 billion to the top 2% of earners. If they reverse the 50p tax rate, that's another £2.4 billion to the top 2%. If you add up all of the tax breaks they want to give (and these are not all of them), then in total they want to give almost £12billion to the top 2% of earners in this country, in their first year of office. They have not announced any way in which they will regain this amount of money, despite the fact we are in a recession, and they have said they will have to make massive cuts to the public sector. People should be frothing at the mouth about this, but instead they're seriously considering voting Conservative.

Finally you have David Cameron himself. A man whose election campaign consists of saying the word change so much that I'm beginning to suspect he might have tourettes, and whose whole campaign can be boiled down to the phrase 'Vote for me, I'm not Gordon Brown.' A man who, in an effort to appear environmentally conscious, rode to work on a bike, whilst a car with his briefcase and suit was driven to work behind him. A man who will support any cause that allows him to say he wouldn't have done something unpopular that the Labour party has done, as long as it means he doesn't have to say what he would have done otherwise. His smug posturing when Labour was defeated over the Ghurka was proof of this. That man didn't care about the rights of the Ghurka, he just cared about being on the side of something popular. He just wants to be in power so that he can have power, and a man like that should never be let near it.

I must stress here, that I'm not saying vote Labour, Lib Dem or anything else. I say one thing. Don't vote Conservative. If that's not enough to convince you not to, then the next 5 years will be worse than the last.

And I haven't even mentioned George Osborne.