Log in

No account? Create an account
charlie, computer cat

January 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com
candid-opinion, calvin

Floating voter?

On my way back to work at lunchtime (having dropped the bike off for puncture repair) I found myself listening to the lunchtime previews of the Tory party conference with what I can only describe as genuine interest, something so rare for me in conference season that I was genuinely surprised and started to wonder what was going on.

And here's the thing. I think the reason I'm listening interestedly is that I don't know who to vote for, which is something of a first for me. Although I support a lot of Labours social policy intentions I distrust their authoritarian attitude more and can't see myself voting for them. Up until now I've been a staunch Lib Dem but now I'm still angry with them about the kicking out of Charles Kennedy and really not sure about Ming and his plans. And the Tories? Well, the idea of conservatism with a social concience is appealing but I'd have to be sure that their "small government" instincts knew when to stop - I don't want a government too small to provide an NHS.

Then there are the smaller parties but none of them really seems to have enough of a practical overall programme to consider voting for (Citizen's income? I'm not convinced), quite apart from the question of wasted votes.

I think maybe I should make a quizilla quiz for candidates to take next election. It would have questions about all my key issues weighted by how much I care about them and then I could just see what the outcome was. But in the mean time, I'll be giving the Tories a fair hearing this week, which surprises me.



As someone who seems to be a perpetual voter for the mostly-losing and ineffectual opposition, I am always struck with the challenge of parsing between the opposition candidate who will say anything to win, and their lack of record of achievement because of their opposition or 'time in the wilderness.'

I imagine I would feel much the same about the UK political scene as I do the US one - whatever the party, whatever the politics, whatever the policy: there is a dire need for fresh infusions of blood, vigour, imagination, progress.

In the US: both Parties are dominated by their dynastic elites. I feel stuck in a 17th century model of which Prince or Duke I should support.

Re: Understood

Luckily, here, although old politicians (e.g. Thatcher) can have quite an ideological sway, there's not a lot of dynastic stuff. I think it's because there's no personal campaign finance here - the party raises it and campaigns with it all across the board so there's less opportunity for rich families to put their people in position.

I definitely agree that we need fresh blood and I'm partly considering the Tories because I'm aware that politics is a pendulum to a certain extent. Labour have done some good things but in other areas have swung too far in one direction and I hope that the Tories would perhaps correct that without dismantling what I think has been good in the current adminstration. So now I have to decide if I trust them to do that...

Re: Understood

As for California politics - I can't help but seriously consider Schwarzenegger's bid...especially after pursuing several eco-friendly policies that I agree with. Angelides is just such a dead fish, and I never hear anything he has to propose in the media.^

However, I remind myself of his preceding years of conservatism, indecision, and waste (namely the post facto Bay Bridge redesign efforts) - which puts this recent 'green' effort a bit conspicuous and suspicious.

^Yes, I recognize the collusion going on, especially with the Governator's headline-grabbing tactics.
I'm in a similar position: I don't trust labour's authoritarianism, and I especially dislike their apparent unwillingness to build consensus in the electorate by _listening_ and _responding appropriately_, but I like some of their socialist policies. And I'm pissed off that they didn't even begin to address useful electoral reform. I don't trust the conservatives because I expect the same kind of authoritarianism with less socialism, but when I put aside that historical instinct, Cameron's ideas seem to have merit, though that is much easier when hand-waving. And I don't know what the Lib Dems are up to, and I'm marginally persuaded by arguments against their newly unveiled tax plan.

I'll probably end up voting Green, and that would be a first in a national election for me.

I think the citizen's wage is an idea with merit :) I think it ought to be tried somewhere, and why not here?... I think major problems would arise because people in this country just don't have the instincts to form 'welfare communities' as envisaged by the Greens - we're not used to that way of working, and we're too selfish - but the only way we'll ever get them is by trying such things and adapting to the consequences.

That said, I can imagine ways to get from the means-tested benefits system to the non-means-tested citizen's wage without doing it in one sudden step. And that there'd be a huge outcry in most of the papers, about people who don't 'deserve' support, and about how it'd breed lazy people.
I think it would work if there were a majority of people prepared to put the community first and muck in and do their share. But to me, that seems a ridiculously optimistic assumption.

On the other hand, I suppose that if a majority had voted Green that that would indicate that maybe there was so it would work if they ever got into power (if you see what I mean).


Citizen Income

Sounds both Swedish, and prone to abuse. Such a policy would only fire up the anti-immigrant sentiments by some. What else would be added to the 'citizenship test'?
That was me, btw.
That is a remarkably big teacup.

-- tom