Politicks

In case you haven't heard, there's going to be an election on Thursday. It's one of the important ones, and will go some way to determining who governs the country.

I haven't written about it much here, but I thought I'd better do so, lest I be seen as lacking cultural relevance; the kind of anachronism who uses words like 'lest'.

And if it's good enough for Stephen Fry, it's good enough for me.

I don't think my opinions on the election will surprise anyone. I hate the thought of a Conservative government; I find the failings of Labour too great to overlook; and I find the Lib Dems appealing, if slightly irritating.

I live in the constituency of Oxford West and Abingdon. Incidentally, this is the only specific constituency mentioned by Fry in the link above:

On one front alone I would absolutely urge you to vote LibDem and that is if you live in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency. Your incumbent member, now under threat because of boundary changes, is Evan Harris MP, far and away the most persuasive and impressive parliamentarian in the cause of good and open science and enquiry that we have had in the past decade.

He has been central to mould-breaking and inspirational multiparty cooperation in issues of scientific concern since 1997. It seems to me (almost!) that he should be elected unopposed like the Speaker. If you have any interest in the promotion of science and evidence based policy-making and a voice to oppose superstition, religious vested interest and new age nonsense, then do check him out and get those Oxonian Abingdonians working for his re-election.

I don't mean to suggest Fry is an infallible source of moral guidance, but it's pretty cool. I will be voting for Evan Harris, of course.

I'm lucky in that I live in a constituency that is a direct fight between Tories and Lib Dems. It means I get to sabotage the Conservatives, without having to vote for Labour.

If it was a Tory-Labour race, I'd be deliberating about whether to go for the lesser of two evils or the greatest of several inconsequential goods. Luckily, I get to damage the bad guy, and support the plucky underdog with the decent values.

So, I'd be voting for the Lib Dems here whatever happened. But luckily, Evan Harris seems to be a good guy (though, understandably, a little bit aggressive on Twitter). I like his pro-science stance. We've received leaflets trying to paint him as an baby-killing, animal-torturing maniac - which has only improved his standing in my (cosmetics-tested) eyes.

I'm relieved that I don't have a tricky choice to make, and I really hope that he gets in.

That's not to say that I'm totally aboard the Lib Dem bandwagon. With all the focus on Nick Clegg, I can't help feeling that I still don't know who he is. I have no more idea of what's going on beneath the surface than I do with David Cameron. It's just that his surface is much more palatable.

Of course, I understand that that's mainly in the debate environment - where polish is a requirement. (As in a polished surface, not the language of the Poles).

In fact, it's Brown that I'm suddenly warming to. He's the only one that seems like a real person, albeit a battered, punch drunk, traitorous person. His speech at the Citizens UK event seemed like a genuine person talking about what they believe in, with passion and conviction. It was almost like the politics you see in films, or old newsreels.

But it should be about policy, not passion; statistics, not snappy lines.

Or should it?

I always thought it should. I don't like the idea of people being swayed by looks and clever patter, when they should be swayed by figures. But I'm starting to think more and more that the figures are just too unknowable. The specifics of the budget, the almost impossible weighing of so many concerns, all seem like something we just can't comprehend. It's difficult to get your head around the vastness of it all.

That's not to say that we shouldn't get involved, can't get to know the nuts and bolts, and are never justified in criticising government. But people tend to think they know how to solve problems. They want taxes lowered, they want better public services. It's difficult for the average voter to understand that there are other needs than their own, and that sometimes these other needs take priority.

I'm sure that conception of 'the average voter' is patronising and pessimistic! But I think I'm trying to say that in a world of politicians who are 'all the same', and with an economy that will require cuts and caution whoever is in power, a better indicator of who to vote for might be the values they hold.

I don't know how to divide up the budget, but I'd like to put my trust in someone who seems to believe in the same things I do, and who I can trust to (attempt to) do the right thing.

That's probably quite a right-wing thing to say. (I think there's some Thatcher quote about her not wanting consensus, but to lead the way and have others follow). I suppose what I really mean is: I don't really know how the economy works (Paul Fung BA Oxon- Politics, Philosophy and Economics), so I need someone I can trust.

And it's definitely not David Cameron.

The important thing, of course, is: vote.

It is important to vote.

I say this having believed in the past that it's not worth voting. I used to think it was pointless, that participating in the system was giving it a legitimacy it didn't deserve, that it made no difference, that I was making a statement by not voting.

I think I was wrong.

(Incidentally, for one reason or another, I have never not voted in a general election - but this was probably more due to circumstances than political conviction.)

But I'd like to say that, whilst I don't agree with it, I don't completely dismiss the idea of not voting. I think that you could argue that by not voting, your making a more significant comment on the political system. This is because voter turnout is talked about a lot in election analysis, and that low turnout would be a good argument for changing the political system.

You'd be wrong to argue that, but at least it's an argument.

I think this is why I have reservations about an Australian-style compulsory vote. Although my mind is being changed about that.

There's a libertarian tick on the back of my neck saying "if you don't want to do something and it's not hurting anyone and you're not going to complain about the outcome, the government shouldn't be able to make you do it". But I hate that tick. People should pay taxes. Can't the vote be a democracy tax - a vital obligation? I don't know, but there's something I don't like about the compulsory vote.

I associate libertarian impulses not just with ticks, but with dicks. Economic libertarianism, of course ("I worked hard to make my money and want to keep it! Does that make me evil?" - No, but it makes you a dick.).

Worryingly for my lefty credentials, I also tend to find that about social libertarianism, when it comes to paranoia over surveillance, Big Brother, and general oppressive government. Of course I agree with their points. Of course I do. But there's always the same tick-like self-interest pervading those posts. I can't explain it.

So I'm a conflicted mess about two things:
- Should the vote be compulsory?
- Being annoyed by whiny nerds complaining about the evils of Facebook, ID cards, and the government stopping them stealing stuff, even though I'm on their side.

So that's just two grey areas. In all other arenas, I'm totally decided and completely infallible.

I really got off track there. Where was I? Oh yes: why you should vote.

Even though you might be able to twist your way into thinking it's noble to not vote, you're wrong. The best way to change the political system is by voting for a party interested in electoral reform. No government is going to look at a low turnout and decide to change things up.

The thing is, most non-voters aren't thinking of that anyway. They aren't focused on a subversive campaign. They just don't really care.

"They're all the same."

Well, they're all quite similar. But they're not identical. Even if it's the difference between on the one hand: a largely right-leaning Murdoch-owned government, and on the other: a largely right-leaning Murdoch-owned government that's a little bit racist - that's a choice. And it's a choice worth voting for.

The differences may be small, but surely it's worth voting even for a slight difference in attitude to tax or immigration or the BBC or the environment or whatever. You may think your vote makes no difference, and maybe it won't to you, but it will to SOMEBODY.

Not voting is just an act of adolescent faux-rebellion. An act of laziness.

(And for me to be criticising laziness, you know it must be something big).

I don't want to tell people that their vote is a privilege or a duty. I don't want to tell you that 'people died in wars' to earn you that right, because I don't think that's what makes it important.

I just want people to think about what they're doing. I want them to weigh up the consequences of voting vs not voting.

This election, which has the potential to change all subsequent elections, cannot be ignored.

Right. That's much too long. Sorry.

I don't even know who I'm trying to convince, there. I'm sure my readers are rational humans.

I suppose it's just me bellowing into the apathetic void. Which is odd, because I have a summerhouse there.