Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The United Kingdom General Election: Part 1 (I disagree with all the parties)
Our regular reader will have noticed a lack of interest in the General Election.
Discontented cliches such as 'they're all the same' are really not my style, but i do have a problem with this election. Cyncism has prevailed, but the source of my discontent has been hard to define.
There is a quite separate problem to be dealt with first:
I disagree with all the parties.
The Labour Government has repeatedly disgraced itself in ways I considered unforgivable: Dishonesty over the war; fox-hunting; sectarian schools; new mega-blaspemy law etc.., but, worst of all, the incredible, deliberate catastrophe of postal-voting.
The Tory party generally seems similar but worse (even more sectarian schools; war without any pretence of justification) with the addition of the crazy tactic of leading their campaign on immigration. They are trying to take votes from the BNP & UKIP, not Labour.
If they had asked my opinion, I would have suggested to them that there might be more discontented Labour voters than racist nutjobs. And that most of the racist nutjobs were voting Tory anyway.
I was, last month, considering voting Tory for the first time in my life, largely out of respect for my local candidate, John Whittingdale. This stopped when Michael Howard tapped me on the shoulder 20 or 30 times to tell me he was, contrary to all expectations, primarily concerned with immigration when he wasn't battling gypsies. Thus the City and the CBI back Labour (noting correctly that the free movement of people is kind of important in industries like, tourism, education &, erm, everything else).
The Liberals offer nothing to wage earners: their 'Moloch' policy is to take from the mouths of children (via their income-earning parents) and hand it to the elderly, no matter how wealthy they are. They want both a local income tax and, erm, more income tax.
The lib-dem election leaflet that came through my door is primarily designed to appeal to the elderly. (Scrapping Council Tax, Saving Local Post Offices, Free Care for the Elderly, Increased Pensions, Faster Diagnosis of Cancer and Heart Disease). The Tories, again, follow along with more crinkly give-aways. (Let's get this straight - Tell me I'm wrong: current retirees did not pay for their retirement through National Insurance payments. They paid for the smaller number of less long-lived elderly people who received pensions when they were working. People working now are paying for their pensions, and will also have to save for their own, whilst buying houses at record high prices and raising children.)
But none of this would be a special problem to me. It's supposed to be like this. I just pick the least bad option. There's something else. More tomorrow.
Discontented cliches such as 'they're all the same' are really not my style, but i do have a problem with this election. Cyncism has prevailed, but the source of my discontent has been hard to define.
There is a quite separate problem to be dealt with first:
I disagree with all the parties.
The Labour Government has repeatedly disgraced itself in ways I considered unforgivable: Dishonesty over the war; fox-hunting; sectarian schools; new mega-blaspemy law etc.., but, worst of all, the incredible, deliberate catastrophe of postal-voting.
The Tory party generally seems similar but worse (even more sectarian schools; war without any pretence of justification) with the addition of the crazy tactic of leading their campaign on immigration. They are trying to take votes from the BNP & UKIP, not Labour.
If they had asked my opinion, I would have suggested to them that there might be more discontented Labour voters than racist nutjobs. And that most of the racist nutjobs were voting Tory anyway.
I was, last month, considering voting Tory for the first time in my life, largely out of respect for my local candidate, John Whittingdale. This stopped when Michael Howard tapped me on the shoulder 20 or 30 times to tell me he was, contrary to all expectations, primarily concerned with immigration when he wasn't battling gypsies. Thus the City and the CBI back Labour (noting correctly that the free movement of people is kind of important in industries like, tourism, education &, erm, everything else).
The Liberals offer nothing to wage earners: their 'Moloch' policy is to take from the mouths of children (via their income-earning parents) and hand it to the elderly, no matter how wealthy they are. They want both a local income tax and, erm, more income tax.
The lib-dem election leaflet that came through my door is primarily designed to appeal to the elderly. (Scrapping Council Tax, Saving Local Post Offices, Free Care for the Elderly, Increased Pensions, Faster Diagnosis of Cancer and Heart Disease). The Tories, again, follow along with more crinkly give-aways. (Let's get this straight - Tell me I'm wrong: current retirees did not pay for their retirement through National Insurance payments. They paid for the smaller number of less long-lived elderly people who received pensions when they were working. People working now are paying for their pensions, and will also have to save for their own, whilst buying houses at record high prices and raising children.)
But none of this would be a special problem to me. It's supposed to be like this. I just pick the least bad option. There's something else. More tomorrow.
