A five year fixed term...that was a smart move by the ol' Liberal Democrats. As I stupidly predicted in my last blog, I was expecting them to be shafted out of Government within a couple of years. They may now even be able to take some of the credit for the recovery and jump into second party position. Ol' Vince Cable may become the hero of the economy! In five years times the famous names of politics we see everyday will be those of Liberal Democrats and not those of Labour. Should Labour be worried...
1) No, they are about to go through a fantastic leadership battle which will pit the big names in the party against each other. David Miliband versus Ed Milibad, brother versus brother...that is going to be a good show. They may still the limelight from the coalition if they do it correctly and they may even win back some voters along the way.
2) yes, Labour are in the position where a strong leadership battle is possible because they have 'political heavyweights'. Political heavyweights come from having cabinet posts and getting tv time. In five years time Lib Dems will have political heavyweights, and not just from going to bed with Cheeky Girls (though a heavyweight he proved not to be). This will mean that when the next election comes around the Lib Dem campaign trail will not rely so heavily on leadership, they will be able to throw big names into the debates with recent cabinet experience...they may be able to knock Labour down a peg or to.
Showing posts with label Voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voting. Show all posts
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Early bird catches the ballot paper
Ok so I am writing this at the point where three constituencies have counted and announced all three from Sunderland, all three Labour wins and with differing swings. The exit polls show Conservatives not to have an overall majority and point towards a hung Parliament. It’s time for me to be stupid and make a prediction – I stick to what I have always said, Conservative win with overall majority, Labour to have second highest amount of seats; however, I will go out on a limb and say that I believe Labour will also secure the second highest amount of votes.
That was my quick update and prediction there, but I just wanted to quickly put together a blog about the other hot topic coming through – the shambles of the voting system. Polling stations closed before people could vote, others stayed open after exit polls were announced and some polling stations didn’t even have enough ballet papers. Well I personally think it is shocking to not have enough ballot papers, that is administration at its worse and someone needs to get blamed for that – almost certainly has to be an inquiry. I also believe that allowing people to vote after the exit polls have been released is poor show, if you haven’t voted before the designated time than that is tough luck. And I am afraid that my opinion remains as that over the people queuing outside polling stations that haven’t been able to vote. I was up at 7am this morning to make my vote before I went to work; if you left it so late that it closed before you could get in than that is your fault. The times were clearly 7am to 10pm – plenty of time! Don’t complain, live and learn and in five years time get up early and get down to that polling station.
That was my quick update and prediction there, but I just wanted to quickly put together a blog about the other hot topic coming through – the shambles of the voting system. Polling stations closed before people could vote, others stayed open after exit polls were announced and some polling stations didn’t even have enough ballet papers. Well I personally think it is shocking to not have enough ballot papers, that is administration at its worse and someone needs to get blamed for that – almost certainly has to be an inquiry. I also believe that allowing people to vote after the exit polls have been released is poor show, if you haven’t voted before the designated time than that is tough luck. And I am afraid that my opinion remains as that over the people queuing outside polling stations that haven’t been able to vote. I was up at 7am this morning to make my vote before I went to work; if you left it so late that it closed before you could get in than that is your fault. The times were clearly 7am to 10pm – plenty of time! Don’t complain, live and learn and in five years time get up early and get down to that polling station.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
It is decision time...this is whats on offer...
So tomorrow is the big day! I have spent this evening trying to catch up on the huge amounts of election shows that have been pushed out via TV this week. To be honest, they are all rather dull. All the parties have repeatedly spoken about the same boring issues and put the same points over without ever really giving any passionate; ideological please about why they are correct. So I have decided that the best way to decide who to vote for is to choose your ideology, and then vote for the party that fits this best. Below you will find (with the help of the BBC website) a detailed version of what the parties are now, and then a comparison of what they have traditionally stood for. I will take the Tories as standing for ‘one-nation’ Conservatism, which is essentially paternalistic, whilst maintaining hierarchy and authority. I will take Labour to be a socialist party, essentially standing for left-wing ideals of equality and distribution of resources. The Lib Dem party are a bit more difficult to pin down due to their ‘new’ status, but I will take them from their oldest roots as I have with the others, they are basically a Liberal party believing in freedom and equality of opportunity. Essentially, if you traditionally vote Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem – look at the below and question whether you should this time.
Labour
Key priorities:
1. "Targeted" increase in public spending over the next year to "sustain the recovery", before cutting the deficit by more than 50% by 2014 and reducing the structural deficit by at least two-thirds over the next parliament
2. Protect "frontline investment" in childcare, schools, the NHS and policing
3. Ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week
4. Restore the link between the state pension and earnings from 2012
5. Guarantee a place in education or training for all 16 and 17 year olds
Analysis:
This seems to stay fairly true to Labour beliefs, it is watered-down and saturated in fluff; but to be fair when you fight your way through the extras there is still a base of ideology in this. I am surprised by this as I felt Brown had been swept up in Blairism and failed to bring the party back to his original ideals; but clearly I was wrong and he has.
1. A “targeted” increase in public spending is essentially the redistribution of wealth, a primary socialist value. Labour has always been known as a ‘tax and spend’ party – this is evidence that they still are. My problem with this stance by Labour is that they have not stated which groups they will be “targeting”, this could be the decided whether this policy works or fails.
2. Protecting “frontline investment” is another key socialist value that the Labour Party has clearly kept at the front of their policies. It is the idea of re-distributing resources to ensure basic services are available to all, a basic standard of living safety net. The Labour Party established the NHS and Tony Blair coined the phrase ‘Education, Education, Education’ – their love for social institutions is clearly built into their party and remain still.
3. The promise that all patients who suspect they have cancer will get results in one week is a very odd promise. Both Tories and Labour have jumped on pro-cancer policies during this election. Obviously it is a huge disease that affects many people; probably the most prominent in our society so should be recognised by government policy. However, this is neither a step away or towards ideology. It is simple pragmatism; it could be argued that this is a step away from ideology as it is prioritising pragmatism over socialist values and therefore stopping the ‘revolution’. However, I would simply say this is social awareness; but I will question why cancer is being picked out from all the diseases, I would be upset if I suffered from another, less popular, terminal illness.
4. Restoring the link between state pensions and earnings is another sign of redistributing the wealth through tax to those that are less well off. This is again about a certain standard of living, a step towards equality. Clearly another case of Brown sticking to values.
5. The guarantee that all people between 16-17 year olds will have a place in education or training is a slight side step away from socialism. The Labour Party would argue they are enabling the movement of working class into middle class and therefore ensuring equality of opportunity. However, equality of opportunity is essentially a liberal view, socialists primarily believe in equality of outcome. This is a step away from socialist values, a step first made by Blair and his ‘third way’; however it is only a slight one so I suppose we can forgive Mr. Brown on this one.
Conservative
Key Priorities:
1. Aim to eliminate "the bulk" of the UK's structural deficit within five years beginning in 2010 with £6bn in cuts
2. Spending cuts in all areas apart from health and foreign aid
3. Allow charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services
4. Scrap identity card scheme
5. Recognise marriage in the tax system by allowing adults who are married or in a civil partnership to transfer up to £750 of their tax-free personal allowance to their spouse, as long as the higher-income member of the couple is a basic-rate taxpayer.
Analysis:
This is not the most ideologically based set of key priorities. When compared to the Labour priorities which are clearly based on their core values, there is a clear lack of core values in these. The Tories have traditionally been pragmatic and they may be able to argue that these policies are pragmatism rather than ideological, but I am not sure what trends they are jumping on here. This has rendered me correct in my opinions on Cameron, there is no substance behind his charm...whether he is a good leader or not may be what you decide to vote on, but looking at this I would suggest that is all he has.
1. To be fair the aim to cut “the bulk” of the deficit with £6bn in cuts is a traditional Tory policy. Whereas Labour are a ‘tax and spend’ party, Tories have always been the party of less is more. They believe in cuts in public services and therefore a cut in taxes. They believe they can stop a rise in taxes by cutting public services – my problem with this policy is that they have not made clear which services will be cut.
2. This priority seems very similar to the last one. Perhaps another sign that they are hiding a lack of substance through charm and word play. However, what does come through is the want to save health and foreign aid. This answers part of my question over the first priority, we now know these two institutions won’t be affected but still don’t know how the other areas will be. It is also sheer pragmatism that these two have been chosen. Foreign aid is clearly chosen because of the media saturation surround instances like Haiti and the campaigns of Oxfam. Health is another odd choice, could be personal to Cameron or could be because he has felt a census since Obama’s healthcare policies that the British are proud of the NHS. I say healthcare is an odd choice because it was not long ago that the Tories were threatening voucher systems and privatisation. However, I think the Conservatives could argue that their want to keep foreign aid is their core value of paternalism, but on a global scale. Instead of the rich looking after the poor within our country, they are doing it on a global scale – and thereby ensuring England stays on top of the hierarchy.
3. The allowing of charities and trusts to take over from public spending in paying for our schools is essentially more cuts in public spending. This is clearly a sign that they want education to take a bulk of their cuts. This again shows the Tory value of being a party that cuts, not a party that taxes...but is this really all they offer. I understand that Cameron is not a Thatcherite, he is a one-nation Tory, but he shows nothing of the passion and ideals that she led this country with.
4. This is a policy I do not understand at all. How is this priority? I understand it was expensive to set up and we are now in deficit, but really...a priority? There is no ideology behind this at all...just pure partisan pragmatism.
5. The recognition of marriage in a tax system is my favourite Tory policy, yet completely misguided. It should not be the ‘recognition of marriage’ but an incentive for one parent to stay home and be more involved in their children’s lives. However, at least there is ideology behind this; it is a clear that Cameron is still a firm believer of the Conservative value of tradition, in this case traditional family values.
Liberal Democrats
Key Priorities:
1. Identify and cut £15bn of lower priority spending per year to protect front-line services while reducing structural deficit at least as fast as Labour plans, beginning in 2011
2. Raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from £6,475 to £10,000
3. Impose "mansion tax" on the value of properties over £2m and increase capital gains tax to bring it into line with income tax
4. Introduce a banking levy until such time as banks' retail and investment arms can be separated
5. Scrap identity card scheme
Analysis:
This is the least in line with the traditional values of all the parties. They show no real sense of libertarianism that defined the Liberal Party for so many years and instead have basically turned into a socialist party. There merger with the SDP is probably the root of this, but in the 80s Thatcher basically took the reins of negative freedom and since her departure no party has picked it back up.
1. This is just the pragmatic cut of spending that we have seen from all the parties. Again, there is no sign of suggesting which front line services might be saved and which will be cut.
2. Raising the threshold of income tax is essentially a socialist policy which I am sure, if the economics adds up, Labour will steal. It is however not a traditional liberal policy. Liberals believe in freedom from large government, the more tax intervention the more government re-distribution.
3. The imposing of “mansion tax” is again a tax intervention that goes against liberal core beliefs. Traditionally liberals would believe in supporting enterprise and entrepreneurship by not taxing the wealthy, they see it as taking away from their incentives.
4. The banking levy is purely pragmatic. Again, this is going against their traditional beliefs of supporting enterprise. They have jumped on the ‘hate the bankers’ bandwagon and not taken into account that they are have been a highly successful industry at the centre of our economy that the market needed to regulate. That would have been the traditional libertarian viewpoint.
5. This is as poor show as the Tory priority to scrap it. To be fair it is freedom of civil liberties which has been strongly supported by the likes of Locke. But still...a priority?
Labour
Key priorities:
1. "Targeted" increase in public spending over the next year to "sustain the recovery", before cutting the deficit by more than 50% by 2014 and reducing the structural deficit by at least two-thirds over the next parliament
2. Protect "frontline investment" in childcare, schools, the NHS and policing
3. Ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week
4. Restore the link between the state pension and earnings from 2012
5. Guarantee a place in education or training for all 16 and 17 year olds
Analysis:
This seems to stay fairly true to Labour beliefs, it is watered-down and saturated in fluff; but to be fair when you fight your way through the extras there is still a base of ideology in this. I am surprised by this as I felt Brown had been swept up in Blairism and failed to bring the party back to his original ideals; but clearly I was wrong and he has.
1. A “targeted” increase in public spending is essentially the redistribution of wealth, a primary socialist value. Labour has always been known as a ‘tax and spend’ party – this is evidence that they still are. My problem with this stance by Labour is that they have not stated which groups they will be “targeting”, this could be the decided whether this policy works or fails.
2. Protecting “frontline investment” is another key socialist value that the Labour Party has clearly kept at the front of their policies. It is the idea of re-distributing resources to ensure basic services are available to all, a basic standard of living safety net. The Labour Party established the NHS and Tony Blair coined the phrase ‘Education, Education, Education’ – their love for social institutions is clearly built into their party and remain still.
3. The promise that all patients who suspect they have cancer will get results in one week is a very odd promise. Both Tories and Labour have jumped on pro-cancer policies during this election. Obviously it is a huge disease that affects many people; probably the most prominent in our society so should be recognised by government policy. However, this is neither a step away or towards ideology. It is simple pragmatism; it could be argued that this is a step away from ideology as it is prioritising pragmatism over socialist values and therefore stopping the ‘revolution’. However, I would simply say this is social awareness; but I will question why cancer is being picked out from all the diseases, I would be upset if I suffered from another, less popular, terminal illness.
4. Restoring the link between state pensions and earnings is another sign of redistributing the wealth through tax to those that are less well off. This is again about a certain standard of living, a step towards equality. Clearly another case of Brown sticking to values.
5. The guarantee that all people between 16-17 year olds will have a place in education or training is a slight side step away from socialism. The Labour Party would argue they are enabling the movement of working class into middle class and therefore ensuring equality of opportunity. However, equality of opportunity is essentially a liberal view, socialists primarily believe in equality of outcome. This is a step away from socialist values, a step first made by Blair and his ‘third way’; however it is only a slight one so I suppose we can forgive Mr. Brown on this one.
Conservative
Key Priorities:
1. Aim to eliminate "the bulk" of the UK's structural deficit within five years beginning in 2010 with £6bn in cuts
2. Spending cuts in all areas apart from health and foreign aid
3. Allow charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services
4. Scrap identity card scheme
5. Recognise marriage in the tax system by allowing adults who are married or in a civil partnership to transfer up to £750 of their tax-free personal allowance to their spouse, as long as the higher-income member of the couple is a basic-rate taxpayer.
Analysis:
This is not the most ideologically based set of key priorities. When compared to the Labour priorities which are clearly based on their core values, there is a clear lack of core values in these. The Tories have traditionally been pragmatic and they may be able to argue that these policies are pragmatism rather than ideological, but I am not sure what trends they are jumping on here. This has rendered me correct in my opinions on Cameron, there is no substance behind his charm...whether he is a good leader or not may be what you decide to vote on, but looking at this I would suggest that is all he has.
1. To be fair the aim to cut “the bulk” of the deficit with £6bn in cuts is a traditional Tory policy. Whereas Labour are a ‘tax and spend’ party, Tories have always been the party of less is more. They believe in cuts in public services and therefore a cut in taxes. They believe they can stop a rise in taxes by cutting public services – my problem with this policy is that they have not made clear which services will be cut.
2. This priority seems very similar to the last one. Perhaps another sign that they are hiding a lack of substance through charm and word play. However, what does come through is the want to save health and foreign aid. This answers part of my question over the first priority, we now know these two institutions won’t be affected but still don’t know how the other areas will be. It is also sheer pragmatism that these two have been chosen. Foreign aid is clearly chosen because of the media saturation surround instances like Haiti and the campaigns of Oxfam. Health is another odd choice, could be personal to Cameron or could be because he has felt a census since Obama’s healthcare policies that the British are proud of the NHS. I say healthcare is an odd choice because it was not long ago that the Tories were threatening voucher systems and privatisation. However, I think the Conservatives could argue that their want to keep foreign aid is their core value of paternalism, but on a global scale. Instead of the rich looking after the poor within our country, they are doing it on a global scale – and thereby ensuring England stays on top of the hierarchy.
3. The allowing of charities and trusts to take over from public spending in paying for our schools is essentially more cuts in public spending. This is clearly a sign that they want education to take a bulk of their cuts. This again shows the Tory value of being a party that cuts, not a party that taxes...but is this really all they offer. I understand that Cameron is not a Thatcherite, he is a one-nation Tory, but he shows nothing of the passion and ideals that she led this country with.
4. This is a policy I do not understand at all. How is this priority? I understand it was expensive to set up and we are now in deficit, but really...a priority? There is no ideology behind this at all...just pure partisan pragmatism.
5. The recognition of marriage in a tax system is my favourite Tory policy, yet completely misguided. It should not be the ‘recognition of marriage’ but an incentive for one parent to stay home and be more involved in their children’s lives. However, at least there is ideology behind this; it is a clear that Cameron is still a firm believer of the Conservative value of tradition, in this case traditional family values.
Liberal Democrats
Key Priorities:
1. Identify and cut £15bn of lower priority spending per year to protect front-line services while reducing structural deficit at least as fast as Labour plans, beginning in 2011
2. Raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from £6,475 to £10,000
3. Impose "mansion tax" on the value of properties over £2m and increase capital gains tax to bring it into line with income tax
4. Introduce a banking levy until such time as banks' retail and investment arms can be separated
5. Scrap identity card scheme
Analysis:
This is the least in line with the traditional values of all the parties. They show no real sense of libertarianism that defined the Liberal Party for so many years and instead have basically turned into a socialist party. There merger with the SDP is probably the root of this, but in the 80s Thatcher basically took the reins of negative freedom and since her departure no party has picked it back up.
1. This is just the pragmatic cut of spending that we have seen from all the parties. Again, there is no sign of suggesting which front line services might be saved and which will be cut.
2. Raising the threshold of income tax is essentially a socialist policy which I am sure, if the economics adds up, Labour will steal. It is however not a traditional liberal policy. Liberals believe in freedom from large government, the more tax intervention the more government re-distribution.
3. The imposing of “mansion tax” is again a tax intervention that goes against liberal core beliefs. Traditionally liberals would believe in supporting enterprise and entrepreneurship by not taxing the wealthy, they see it as taking away from their incentives.
4. The banking levy is purely pragmatic. Again, this is going against their traditional beliefs of supporting enterprise. They have jumped on the ‘hate the bankers’ bandwagon and not taken into account that they are have been a highly successful industry at the centre of our economy that the market needed to regulate. That would have been the traditional libertarian viewpoint.
5. This is as poor show as the Tory priority to scrap it. To be fair it is freedom of civil liberties which has been strongly supported by the likes of Locke. But still...a priority?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Elections make me cynical...
I am sorry but having witnessed the release of the three main parties (and the Green Party's) election manifesto's and watched the leaders debate on ITV all I can say is, they will never listen to us.
The debate between the leaders, to be fair, did involve a certain amount of back and forth, most of which was between Brown and Cameron. Clegg will be reported to have won the debate but frankly, he just looked like the geeky kid who hadn't been asked to dance. He gave valid, good responses and did well to attack Cameron without chumming up to Brown, but Cameron just shrugged him off time and time again which perfectly showed how little he mattered. He is not going to Prime Minister and was only on the stage to appease people - they gave the baby their bottle, it just had no milk in it.
My main problem with the debate was not the debate itself, but everything that has and will surround it. For instance, the results of the debate are just ridiculously misleading...ITV instant results said that Nick Clegg got 46%, David Cameron got 26% and Gordon Brown got 20%. Now I am wondering what happened to the other 8% but that’s beside the point. The point is, as I said above, Nick Clegg is not going to be the next Prime Minister. Who ever took those polls will be horribly wrong.
Even in this ‘digital election’ era we cannot see the correct answer appear in any polls. The amazingly fun and addictive website Slapometer (which allows you to vote by slapping the three party leaders in the face during the debates) has even failed provide the correct answer. The final results on Slapometer for Debate One were Clegg 12%, Brown 38% and Cameron 50% (a number he almost certainly will not reach in the actual election). In this perfect and pure form of direct democracy Clegg is down as winner again! I am sorry but this just goes to show us the flaw in democracy. Just like these results were wrong, so were the many people commenting on #leadersdebate; the twitter link created so people could bitch about what was being said in the debates. They were not wrong in their opinions; they were just wrong that people cared.
One of the main things that have made me most cynical about this election is the increasing idea that social media will give voice to the people, it won't. The Labour manifesto even claimed that they would put bills online for public scrutiny. People shall scrutinise, they shall not listen. The perfect example was the much debated (everywhere except the House of Commons) Digital Economy Bill. Twitter ran rampant with debate about this, did they listen...nope, the Bill passed! And this evening Twitter saw much of the same activity...thousands of people rushing to comment on the debates...most of whom hated either Brown or Cameron and could not say a bad word about Lib Dems’ Mr. Clegg...sadly the world won't listen...he won't win.
The debate between the leaders, to be fair, did involve a certain amount of back and forth, most of which was between Brown and Cameron. Clegg will be reported to have won the debate but frankly, he just looked like the geeky kid who hadn't been asked to dance. He gave valid, good responses and did well to attack Cameron without chumming up to Brown, but Cameron just shrugged him off time and time again which perfectly showed how little he mattered. He is not going to Prime Minister and was only on the stage to appease people - they gave the baby their bottle, it just had no milk in it.
My main problem with the debate was not the debate itself, but everything that has and will surround it. For instance, the results of the debate are just ridiculously misleading...ITV instant results said that Nick Clegg got 46%, David Cameron got 26% and Gordon Brown got 20%. Now I am wondering what happened to the other 8% but that’s beside the point. The point is, as I said above, Nick Clegg is not going to be the next Prime Minister. Who ever took those polls will be horribly wrong.
Even in this ‘digital election’ era we cannot see the correct answer appear in any polls. The amazingly fun and addictive website Slapometer (which allows you to vote by slapping the three party leaders in the face during the debates) has even failed provide the correct answer. The final results on Slapometer for Debate One were Clegg 12%, Brown 38% and Cameron 50% (a number he almost certainly will not reach in the actual election). In this perfect and pure form of direct democracy Clegg is down as winner again! I am sorry but this just goes to show us the flaw in democracy. Just like these results were wrong, so were the many people commenting on #leadersdebate; the twitter link created so people could bitch about what was being said in the debates. They were not wrong in their opinions; they were just wrong that people cared.
One of the main things that have made me most cynical about this election is the increasing idea that social media will give voice to the people, it won't. The Labour manifesto even claimed that they would put bills online for public scrutiny. People shall scrutinise, they shall not listen. The perfect example was the much debated (everywhere except the House of Commons) Digital Economy Bill. Twitter ran rampant with debate about this, did they listen...nope, the Bill passed! And this evening Twitter saw much of the same activity...thousands of people rushing to comment on the debates...most of whom hated either Brown or Cameron and could not say a bad word about Lib Dems’ Mr. Clegg...sadly the world won't listen...he won't win.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Apparently They're Off....
So after the huge news frenzy today it is safe to say that we all know the election officially kicked off. A couple of news broadcasters, including the BBC officially started the race with the exhilarating headline, “And they're off!” Sadly I am not so sure that this will be the most exciting election of all time. The news reporters are desperately trying to Jazz it up with ideas that it is impossible to tell who will win at this stage. Fair play to them for this, forgetting that it is obviously great for their ratings if we do all think the election is exciting, at least it might get people to turn up. The fact is that we don’t know the outcome; it is yet to be decided whether the Tories will have a majority, or a slightly less majority. Of course, the slightly less will mean ‘hung parliament’ which we are all very excited about – especially Gordon Brown. To be honest the difference between a Tory Government and a slightly less Tory Government doesn’t infuse me with too much excitement, though I am sure the days after a hung election will be quite good TV.
The boredom that this election can potentially saturate us with is furthered when we look over the fighting ground. This election will not be run on ideology or values (if those silly ideas exist within either party), instead this election will be run on numbers. How much the deficit can be cut by? How much spending can be dropped? And how much will taxes be raised? Not only is this rather dull unless you happen to be an economist or statistician, but its not exactly an exhilarating battleground. Both parties will promise deficit cuts, both will promise to drop spending and both will raise taxes. The exhilarating battlegrounds we have to look forward to is by how much they will do these things…again, not infused.
The idea that a discussion over the restoration of faith in politics may take place is almost enough to gain my interest, but that is quickly taken away when I realize we are debating expenses. I understand that it needs to be solved and yes it needs to be solved openly so we can ‘trust’ them again. Who ever heard of trusting politicians anyway! What I don’t understand is what is left to debate? Yes, Cameron will clean up politics, yes so will Brown, I am sure Clegg will soon…hell even BNP will…not much of a debate there.
When it comes down to it “It’s the economy stupid…” is very true in this election, sadly we are not going to see the Keynes vs Smith debate we might hope for. Instead, we have Brown vs Cameron…debating deficits...I can hardly wait!
The boredom that this election can potentially saturate us with is furthered when we look over the fighting ground. This election will not be run on ideology or values (if those silly ideas exist within either party), instead this election will be run on numbers. How much the deficit can be cut by? How much spending can be dropped? And how much will taxes be raised? Not only is this rather dull unless you happen to be an economist or statistician, but its not exactly an exhilarating battleground. Both parties will promise deficit cuts, both will promise to drop spending and both will raise taxes. The exhilarating battlegrounds we have to look forward to is by how much they will do these things…again, not infused.
The idea that a discussion over the restoration of faith in politics may take place is almost enough to gain my interest, but that is quickly taken away when I realize we are debating expenses. I understand that it needs to be solved and yes it needs to be solved openly so we can ‘trust’ them again. Who ever heard of trusting politicians anyway! What I don’t understand is what is left to debate? Yes, Cameron will clean up politics, yes so will Brown, I am sure Clegg will soon…hell even BNP will…not much of a debate there.
When it comes down to it “It’s the economy stupid…” is very true in this election, sadly we are not going to see the Keynes vs Smith debate we might hope for. Instead, we have Brown vs Cameron…debating deficits...I can hardly wait!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
