Maybe, I’m reading too much into this (and I have alluded to it previously), but one thing that has struck me during this election campaign, and the one same thing that has filled me with some disquiet is constant reference to “families”.
Now, it all depends on how “family” is defined. To give it its most emancipated definition, one could consider it to include any social group, irrespective of either gender mix or domestic arrangements. But I somehow think that what the politicians mean in this context is something rather more restricted.
Certainly, I get the impression that a Family means more than one person living under the same roof. This needs to be further delimited, I think, to exclude dwellings in multiple occupation, yet maybe to include friends, siblings and same-sex relationships.
Somehow, though, I continue to receive the very strong impression that Family means a unit of Mum, Dad, children: a very stereotypical ‘ideal’ of a domestic unit.
Despite the fact, I have the good fortune to have never lived by myself, I feel quite insulted by this. The message I am getting is: unless I can conform to this stereotype, my issues are judged to be of less importance in this election than those of “The Family”.
Now don’t get me wrong. Families (whoever they be defined) of course deserve due consideration when politicians formulate and disseminate their intentions, but not to the detriment of Everyone Else.
A lot of my arguments here are very dependent on the definition of “The Family”. But I think it is fair for me to point out that such a definition has been so very ambiguous (not to say absent) during this campaign (and in fact for some time) that it has been left wide open to both interpretation and offence.
The mainstreams in this election are all guilty of this to varying extents but it is the Conservatives who have put their money where their mouth is with the Couples’ Tax Allowance.
If David Cameron wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be Single.
Friday 30 April 2010
Sunday 25 April 2010
Nick this chance, don't blow it.
If you refer back to my article of 8 March, you’ll see it concluded with a prophecy of a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition being the outcome of the forthcoming election. Comments from figures representing both those parties, and the current state of the opinion polls, strongly intimate that that prophecy is becoming ever more likely.
It will come as surprise to no-one that my preference in a balanced parliament would be for a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition – in fact a better preference still, would a “Progressive Coalition” of Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Greens and Respect (assuming the last two win seats on 6 May) – but that is of course, very unlikely.
Nick Clegg is right to play his cards as close to his chest as possible on this one – particularly as the hand has not yet been fully dealt. However, his comments on today’s Andrew Marr show are worth a bit of analysis. To say that it would be wrong to support a party that came third in terms of the popular vote (i.e. Labour, he assumes) appears fair and logical immediately. But be careful here Nick: whilst the polls make very rosy reading for you at the moment, remember second place in terms of vote share is not yet in the bag for your party. By the token of your argument, were the first and second places to be dealt to Conservative and Labour, respectively, then it should be Cameron and Brown (or their successors) that form the government.
I also believe if the country votes for a balanced parliament then that is just what it should get. The most recent polls actually point towards the Conservatives being the largest single party. This would mean then that the Liberal Democrats would have more sway if they teamed up with Labour rather than the Conservatives: 30% of a coalition with the former, as opposed to 28% with the latter. If I were Nick Clegg, I would feel a duty to the electorate, who had just charged me with the balance of power, to maximise that balance via a sphere of influence. Remember too, that the Conservatives have their, oft-forgotten, automatic buffer: the Unionists in Northern Ireland (including the DUP). So even if, on the face of it, they end up with less seats than Labour, adding a dozen or so Unionists to their tally of seats dilutes any Liberal Democrat power still further.
Whatever happens, the Liberal Democrats must use this opportunity to secure Proportional Representation for the very next General Election after this one and methinks that such an agreement on electoral reform is far more likely to be achieved with Labour rather Conservative – and it should be this consideration, not who comes first, second and third, that should be paramount to the Liberal Democrats’ decision as to with whom they form the next government. I hope to goodness they don't blow it, or compromise, for the sake of a few high-profile cabinet seats - or anything else for that matter...
It will come as surprise to no-one that my preference in a balanced parliament would be for a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition – in fact a better preference still, would a “Progressive Coalition” of Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Greens and Respect (assuming the last two win seats on 6 May) – but that is of course, very unlikely.
Nick Clegg is right to play his cards as close to his chest as possible on this one – particularly as the hand has not yet been fully dealt. However, his comments on today’s Andrew Marr show are worth a bit of analysis. To say that it would be wrong to support a party that came third in terms of the popular vote (i.e. Labour, he assumes) appears fair and logical immediately. But be careful here Nick: whilst the polls make very rosy reading for you at the moment, remember second place in terms of vote share is not yet in the bag for your party. By the token of your argument, were the first and second places to be dealt to Conservative and Labour, respectively, then it should be Cameron and Brown (or their successors) that form the government.
I also believe if the country votes for a balanced parliament then that is just what it should get. The most recent polls actually point towards the Conservatives being the largest single party. This would mean then that the Liberal Democrats would have more sway if they teamed up with Labour rather than the Conservatives: 30% of a coalition with the former, as opposed to 28% with the latter. If I were Nick Clegg, I would feel a duty to the electorate, who had just charged me with the balance of power, to maximise that balance via a sphere of influence. Remember too, that the Conservatives have their, oft-forgotten, automatic buffer: the Unionists in Northern Ireland (including the DUP). So even if, on the face of it, they end up with less seats than Labour, adding a dozen or so Unionists to their tally of seats dilutes any Liberal Democrat power still further.
Whatever happens, the Liberal Democrats must use this opportunity to secure Proportional Representation for the very next General Election after this one and methinks that such an agreement on electoral reform is far more likely to be achieved with Labour rather Conservative – and it should be this consideration, not who comes first, second and third, that should be paramount to the Liberal Democrats’ decision as to with whom they form the next government. I hope to goodness they don't blow it, or compromise, for the sake of a few high-profile cabinet seats - or anything else for that matter...
Thursday 22 April 2010
The Campaign finally erupts..
Half way through then, this looks to be one of the most exciting elections in living history. At last we may see the Labour/Conservative ‘duopoly’ on power, broken. Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, is quite rightly embracing the idea of a ‘balanced’ parliament – and using a term that, I feel, is far more appropriate and encouraging than ‘hung’.
The Liberal Democrats have already become such an important ‘third force’ in terms of their Westminster representation that it would be futile for either Gordon Brown or David Cameron to try and form a minority administration with the intention of going to the country again nine months later (as happened in 1974). It now does not look beyond the bounds of possibility that Nick Clegg’s party could secure something approaching 100 seats on May 6th: a number that cannot be ignored by the other two or is likely to be sufficiently demolished at a subsequent election.
Despite having left the Liberal Democrats a couple of years ago, this pleases me (although I fear and dread a LibDem/Tory coalition). However, what makes me happier still, is that this all seems to be confounding the ‘old main’ parties, sadly to the extent that you can see the carefully calculated media spin emerging in a desperate attempt to smear Nick Clegg and derail the surge in his party’s support. Their annoyance would be compounded, on election day, by the picking up of seats, hopefully, by the Greens, Respect, a smattering of independents, and less hopefully, by UKIP and, perish the thought, the BNP.
The Scottish and Welsh Nationalists have consistently returned handfuls of MPs (again since 1974) and, with a few exceptions, almost every one won by them in this election will be one less for the ‘duopoly’. (For me, this has an added bonus as I consider the SNP and Plaid Cymru to be very benign centre-left parties.)
With both the Liberal Democrats and other smaller parties being strong in the next parliament, one would hope that we will see them finally able to force the issue of a Proportional Representational Electoral system which, if introduced, thankfully, would see balanced parliaments the norm rather than exception.
Desperate to grab and retain overall power, this scares the Conservatives witless and hence they are leading the campaign against a long-needed breaking up of our two-party state – ironic for a party that is supposed to champion deregulation and the widening of ‘freedom of choice’.
Ken Clarke has been scaremongering that the IMF will be called in in the event of an “indecisive result”. Well, firstly, even if the IMF is involved, which I think it won’t be, this wouldn’t be the first time it has assisted Britain, and here we still are! Secondly, it would NOT be an indecisive result, it would be a DECISIVE one – the people would have decided that they do not want any single party governing the country and they positively want to see some multi-party co-operation. Good!
The Liberal Democrats have already become such an important ‘third force’ in terms of their Westminster representation that it would be futile for either Gordon Brown or David Cameron to try and form a minority administration with the intention of going to the country again nine months later (as happened in 1974). It now does not look beyond the bounds of possibility that Nick Clegg’s party could secure something approaching 100 seats on May 6th: a number that cannot be ignored by the other two or is likely to be sufficiently demolished at a subsequent election.
Despite having left the Liberal Democrats a couple of years ago, this pleases me (although I fear and dread a LibDem/Tory coalition). However, what makes me happier still, is that this all seems to be confounding the ‘old main’ parties, sadly to the extent that you can see the carefully calculated media spin emerging in a desperate attempt to smear Nick Clegg and derail the surge in his party’s support. Their annoyance would be compounded, on election day, by the picking up of seats, hopefully, by the Greens, Respect, a smattering of independents, and less hopefully, by UKIP and, perish the thought, the BNP.
The Scottish and Welsh Nationalists have consistently returned handfuls of MPs (again since 1974) and, with a few exceptions, almost every one won by them in this election will be one less for the ‘duopoly’. (For me, this has an added bonus as I consider the SNP and Plaid Cymru to be very benign centre-left parties.)
With both the Liberal Democrats and other smaller parties being strong in the next parliament, one would hope that we will see them finally able to force the issue of a Proportional Representational Electoral system which, if introduced, thankfully, would see balanced parliaments the norm rather than exception.
Desperate to grab and retain overall power, this scares the Conservatives witless and hence they are leading the campaign against a long-needed breaking up of our two-party state – ironic for a party that is supposed to champion deregulation and the widening of ‘freedom of choice’.
Ken Clarke has been scaremongering that the IMF will be called in in the event of an “indecisive result”. Well, firstly, even if the IMF is involved, which I think it won’t be, this wouldn’t be the first time it has assisted Britain, and here we still are! Secondly, it would NOT be an indecisive result, it would be a DECISIVE one – the people would have decided that they do not want any single party governing the country and they positively want to see some multi-party co-operation. Good!
Monday 12 April 2010
Dumb Fleece and Galloway.
The choice, at least for me, and not just at this election, but generally (‘scuse the pun), and for some time, is between individuals, and not party politics, which I abandoned some time ago. The result of that abandonment is as enlightening as it is refreshing as it is liberating.
Party politics, and the mainstream particularly, is a very malign wolf in sheep’s clothing and a wolf that preys on the naivety of the electorate to the point that it takes all of us for stupid.
We: you and I, are presented with an insulting oligopoly of political choices, protected by an electoral system that is not now even used in the former totalitarian states of Eastern Europe.
The antidote to this fetter on our democracy is for us to treat party politics with the contempt it deserves and pay a little closer attention to certain individuals whom the parties, and the toads in the media, would rather we ignored – and, be assured, they do their damn hardest to ensure we don’t benefit from such a ‘free market’ or ‘competition’ of debates and ideas.
The same is true throughout the world of smoke and mirrors that we live in: deluded into believing we have a wide choice of products and services, in reality we are manipulated and managed by a very small number of very large private organisations.
Ironic then, perhaps, that the monopoly of mainstream political ideas and, moreover, their presentation, is consistently and articulately challenged by one George Galloway.
I have, for some time, made no secret over my admiration for this man and his ability to rile irritate, annoy and dumfound the otherwise torpid and stale cartel of ‘mainstream’ politics.
Whether or not you agree with the substance of what he says (and I agree with much, but not all of it), be under no illusion that what scares the establishment is not his politics, but his style and his ability to inspire people to think outside the box.
For this, he has been labelled as corrupt, as a fraud, and as a demagogue. As if this weren’t insult enough, amongst his critics are those who are guilty of the far more serious crimes of mass murder, and incitement of unprecedented worldwide racial tension, and they escape, scot damn free, from the scrutiny the deserve, by virtue of their membership of a supine majority.
Subverting prevailing orthodox opinion is fundamental to democracy and individual liberty. Those, who today, would like to gag or traduce Mr Galloway, are no better than those, who in previous years, would have denied women the vote and supported the continued criminalisation of homosexuality.
Party politics, and the mainstream particularly, is a very malign wolf in sheep’s clothing and a wolf that preys on the naivety of the electorate to the point that it takes all of us for stupid.
We: you and I, are presented with an insulting oligopoly of political choices, protected by an electoral system that is not now even used in the former totalitarian states of Eastern Europe.
The antidote to this fetter on our democracy is for us to treat party politics with the contempt it deserves and pay a little closer attention to certain individuals whom the parties, and the toads in the media, would rather we ignored – and, be assured, they do their damn hardest to ensure we don’t benefit from such a ‘free market’ or ‘competition’ of debates and ideas.
The same is true throughout the world of smoke and mirrors that we live in: deluded into believing we have a wide choice of products and services, in reality we are manipulated and managed by a very small number of very large private organisations.
Ironic then, perhaps, that the monopoly of mainstream political ideas and, moreover, their presentation, is consistently and articulately challenged by one George Galloway.
I have, for some time, made no secret over my admiration for this man and his ability to rile irritate, annoy and dumfound the otherwise torpid and stale cartel of ‘mainstream’ politics.
Whether or not you agree with the substance of what he says (and I agree with much, but not all of it), be under no illusion that what scares the establishment is not his politics, but his style and his ability to inspire people to think outside the box.
For this, he has been labelled as corrupt, as a fraud, and as a demagogue. As if this weren’t insult enough, amongst his critics are those who are guilty of the far more serious crimes of mass murder, and incitement of unprecedented worldwide racial tension, and they escape, scot damn free, from the scrutiny the deserve, by virtue of their membership of a supine majority.
Subverting prevailing orthodox opinion is fundamental to democracy and individual liberty. Those, who today, would like to gag or traduce Mr Galloway, are no better than those, who in previous years, would have denied women the vote and supported the continued criminalisation of homosexuality.
Saturday 10 April 2010
Back to basic bribery, courtesy of Tories' twisted tax policy.
The Tories have declared plans to give a tax break (and a miserly one at that) to married couples and civil partners and in doing so have unveiled just how committed to short-sighted social engineering they are.
Domestic social units of more than one person would be better encouraged, and maintained, by teaching relationship skills (including parenting) at school and after, rather than trying to cement people together via a financial bribe which, without such skills, can make for misery and trap individuals in abusive relationships.
It is endemic bullying in the form of wilful emotional abuse, in each and every walk of life, that damages the so-called “fabric of society” and not any lack of financial incentive or absence of "message" that the Tories maintain would be sent via such a policy. Tackling this issue is what is fundamental; the deliberate diversion from it: of attempting to manipulate the citizens of this country to dwell in numbers that conform to some cynical ideal of “family values”, is not only futile, but is as outdated as it is sinister.
Domestic social units of more than one person would be better encouraged, and maintained, by teaching relationship skills (including parenting) at school and after, rather than trying to cement people together via a financial bribe which, without such skills, can make for misery and trap individuals in abusive relationships.
It is endemic bullying in the form of wilful emotional abuse, in each and every walk of life, that damages the so-called “fabric of society” and not any lack of financial incentive or absence of "message" that the Tories maintain would be sent via such a policy. Tackling this issue is what is fundamental; the deliberate diversion from it: of attempting to manipulate the citizens of this country to dwell in numbers that conform to some cynical ideal of “family values”, is not only futile, but is as outdated as it is sinister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)