Your vote for the 2015 General Election

[Citizen66]

People need to get out more, these infernal keyboards reduce us. Trees, beasts, birds, clouds, rivers etc. Vote Gaia.

Is she standing this year?

 

[redcogs]

No, she got tied up voting for syriza on the adriatic.

 

[andysays]

yep, fair play, that's true. But it's commonplace to do so, PM did exactly that yesterday, because although the political meaning is debatable, the numbers aren't..

It may be commonplace to do so, but that doesn't make it correct.

For a practical example, look at how many people voted LibDem last time in the belief that it was somehow anti-Tory and then acted all hurt and surprised when their illusions were shattered.

And please don't derail/get derailed into whether PM did that yesterday or not, because even if he did (and I don't remember him do so) it wouldn't make you doing it any less wrong

 

[newbie]

brogdale
Oh come off it. I'm clearly talking about the consequences of the specific act of being 'unwilling to engage' in voting. Do you really think I'm saying anything at all about the rest of peoples lives? Of course not.

I'm sorry, much as I'd like to stay to chat, I'm now off. later.

 

[brogdale]

brogdale
Oh come off it. I'm clearly talking about the consequences of the specific act of being 'unwilling to engage' in voting. Do you really think I'm saying anything at all about the rest of peoples lives? Of course not.

I'm sorry, much as I'd like to stay to chat, I'm now off. later.

Have a nice day.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But by not voting you're giving them other people's choice of mandate. Is that really better?

You're doing so because the system is set up so that an abstention from exercising your franchise serves that purpose. You're not "giving" them anything - they're creating a simulacrum of legitimacy through your action, that's all, and they can do so because they control the pseudo-democratic system that validates your franchise.
We're already dead, we just haven't noticed yet.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sure you could. I've seen loads of idealistic and unworkable theories. I am sure there are many more. Perhaps you could share your workable theory or at least the theory of someone you rate as worth taking seriously.

Here's one theory for you:
Devolve power downward to the lowest possible communal level - this doesn't have to include the nightmare of voting on everything. It can also mean using democratic processes to elect people in a pro-tem manner to "manage" the everyday. Most systems that have tried that have found that rotating people into and out of such positions every two years minimises the sort of institutional problems inherent to "local authorities". Majoritarian rules apply, and everyone's say is equal in value. The job of your elected folk is to facilitate the day-to-day running of the community, and everyone has to take a turn.

 

[bluescreen]

Here's one theory for you:
Devolve power downward to the lowest possible communal level - this doesn't have to include the nightmare of voting on everything. It can also mean using democratic processes to elect people in a pro-tem manner to "manage" the everyday. Most systems that have tried that have found that rotating people into and out of such positions every two years minimises the sort of institutional problems inherent to "local authorities". Majoritarian rules apply, and everyone's say is equal in value. The job of your elected folk is to facilitate the day-to-day running of the community, and everyone has to take a turn.

Thanks.

There's probably a separate thread already for this, but I'm interested in how it might work. How basic a communal level, how many inter-communal committees etc. (French communes are by no means perfect and prone to local bullying and corruption, frex.) Anyway, don't want to derail the election thread but this dissatisfaction sounds fairly common.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't know about you but I'm guessing most people want to live in a society where they are safe from marauders wanting their houses or crops, or even their bicycles, where their health needs can be met and their children educated, where they are respected rather than randomly imprisoned, and so on. I do understand that there will be transitional difficulties (understatement) before we reach this utopia but it would be good to know what I'm signing up to if I'm rejecting parliamentary democracy, and how soon.

What do you think you're rejecting,if you reject parliamentary democracy?
You're not rejecting the right to self-defense, to health or education. All a government in a parliamentary democracy does is take our money and the legitimacy they believe derives from their election, to administrate and legislate such things.
If a federation of communities, truly representative of the views of those they serve, could do so better (and how could they do worse?), and without the usual trade-off between "the people" and "the state" in terms of consent to govern (which currently allows govt to ride roughshod over the will of the people whenever they choose to), then what you'd be signing up for is a chance to breathe free.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes, I see your point. But is not voting any useful way of saying the opposite? Perhaps we need a movement to support the idea of say drawing a spunking cock on the ballot paper means 'we reject this system'. Get the media behind it (and they'll love it) and the authorities won't be able to hide the number in the 'spoilt' ballots. This would have to trigger a proper debate about reforming the wretched system we have.

We might have to choose sonething a little family-friendlier than a spunking cock.

TBF, the age group that are most engaged in drawing spunking cocks are the very age group you're seeking to protect with your "family-friendly" schtick.

 

[brogdale]

You're doing so because the system is set up so that an abstention from exercising your franchise serves that purpose. You're not "giving" them anything - they're creating a simulacrum of legitimacy through your action, that's all, and they can do so because they control the pseudo-democratic system that validates your franchise.
We're already dead, we just haven't noticed yet.

Quite, and the import of that 'legitimacy' ensures that "NOTA" is notan electoral option

 

[ViolentPanda]

Xenophobia and social attitudes such as racism and homophobia etc are the building bricks of a right wing political party like UKIP and it is those which drive and unite them and their supporters. I doubt you would find much consensus on something like financial policy among a cross section of UKIP supporters. So far as they’re concerned... ‘It’s the immigrants, stupid’.

You've shifted the goalposts. My point about racism and homophobia was in reply to your statement that I could "Claim racism and homophobia aren't right wing if you like", making the point that prejudices aren't inherent to a political direction.
Now you're claiming that they're fundamental building blocks of rightwing thought, but they're not - they're politically-convenient bolt-ons.

As for the ‘left’, in this context I mean to the left of the current Labour Party. I was responding to the point that the only alternatives to the two party system are UKIP and the Lib Dems. My point being that although a party to the right of the tories have managed to unite up to five million supporters, it would be impossible for a party to the left of Labour to get anywhere near that kind of popular support. In fact I think you probably agree.

A couple of things -
1) You claim that UKIP is "to the right of the tories". Based on...? It certainly can't be based on their policy announcements (as opposed to councillors gobbing off in their cups).
2) "Left of labour" is a vast sweep of the political spectrum, from the centre-leftwards. A case can be made that a party "to the left of Labour" garnered more than 5 million votes in 2010, but that this party shifted rightward away from their electorate once in power. They were called the Lib-Dems.

 

[bluescreen]

What do you think you're rejecting,if you reject parliamentary democracy?
You're not rejecting the right to self-defense, to health or education. All a government in a parliamentary democracy does is take our money and the legitimacy they believe derives from their election, to administrate and legislate such things.
If a federation of communities, truly representative of the views of those they serve, could do so better (and how could they do worse?), and without the usual trade-off between "the people" and "the state" in terms of consent to govern (which currently allows govt to ride roughshod over the will of the people whenever they choose to), then what you'd be signing up for is a chance to breathe free.

Thanks. I remember a relation telling me the grief of serving on the inter-communal waste disposal committee. It does my head in trying to imagine that across all the sorts of services we expect big state to deliver. Who would have the expertise? Who, having the expertise, would be prepared to give their time?

As I said, I don't want to derail but reckon Real Democracy or whatever you want to call it deserves its own thread.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I think it's shit really but am not persuaded by Lo Siento's honey tongue. This is what we've got. It's a long way from ideal and anyone who cares can work towards changing it. Meanwhile we've got shit+1 or shit+2: who are you going to vote for?

What you're saying is: pick between these two shit sandwiches and THEN, after the election, try to change things. And after the election you'll want us to pick between shit sandwiches all over again.

 

[bluescreen]

What you're saying is: pick between these two shit sandwiches and THEN, after the election, try to change things. And after the election you'll want us to pick between shit sandwiches all over again.

Not exactly. I reckon that elections are bit fetishised but what we do between elections is probably more important. What should we (define 'we'!) be doing?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Not exactly. I reckon that elections are bit fetishised but what we do between elections is probably more important. What should we (define 'we'!) be doing?

Campaigning against austerity, on all possible fronts, including elections.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

You've shifted the goalposts. My point about racism and homophobia was in reply to your statement that I could "Claim racism and homophobia aren't right wing if you like", making the point that prejudices aren't inherent to a political direction.

Now you're claiming that they're fundamental building blocks of rightwing thought, but they're not - they're politically-convenient bolt-ons.




A couple of things -

1) You claim that UKIP is "to the right of the tories". Based on...? It certainly can't be based on their policy announcements (as opposed to councillors gobbing off in their cups).

2) "Left of labour" is a vast sweep of the political spectrum, from the centre-leftwards. A case can be made that a party "to the left of Labour" garnered more than 5 million votes in 2010, but that this party shifted rightward away from their electorate once in power. They were called the Lib-Dems.

I'm not shifting any goalposts, it was you who claimed that the prejudices in question aren't inherent to a political direction. That may be so to a degree, but they are all but exclusive to the far right in contemporary British politics.

So racism and homophobia along with nationalism and xenophobia are most certainly building blocks of the right. UKIP are right wing and they are to the right of the tories. I’ve been opposing the far right since the 1970s, so if you’re going to try and redefine what right wing is for me then you’re wasting your time.

"Left of Labour" may be "a vast sweep", but so what? It's called a broad church and it's who I would support if there was such a party, I'm not expecting to find a party that ticks every box for me. As it is I'll vote for either the Greens or Labour in May.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not shifting any goalposts, it was you who claimed that the prejudices in question aren't inherent to a political direction. That may be so to a degree, but they are all but exclusive to the far right in contemporary British politics.

No they're not.

So racism and homophobia along with nationalism and xenophobia are most certainly building blocks of the right. UKIP are right wing and they are to the right of the tories. I’ve been opposing the far right since the 1970s, so if you’re going to try and redefine what right wing is for me then you’re wasting your time.

Whoop-de-doo! You've been opposing and exposing the far right since the '70s! So have I - I've got the scars to prove it!
What I've also done (easy to do because I've spent all but 3 years of my half-century-plus living in densely-multi-ethnic communities) is study racism and homophobia and nationalism and xenophobia. I don't need to "re-define the right" to acknowledge that the above attributes are universal, and that the difference lies in how well people on the left suppress their baser desires for "the common good".

"Left of Labour" may be "a vast sweep", but so what? It's called a broad church and it's who I would support if there was such a party, I'm not expecting to find a party that ticks every box for me. As it is I'll vote for either the Greens or Labour in May.

What you're looking for is a vote that'll salve your conscience.

 

[ffsear]

ukip

Don't give a fuck about immigration one way or another. I like their stance on education, which is a fucking mess at the moment. And the abolishing of inheritance tax and review of TV licensing, and scrapping of H2S

 

[brogdale]

I like their stance on education, which is a fucking mess at the moment.

 

[el-ahrairah]

another one for the List

 

[agricola]

Miliband getting an absolute shoeing at PMQs.

 

[frogwoman]

Not voting.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I've got the scars to prove it!

Yeah, of course you have mate.

What I've also done (easy to do because I've spent all but 3 years of my half-century-plus living in densely-multi-ethnic communities) is study racism and homophobia and nationalism and xenophobia. I don't need to "re-define the right" to acknowledge that the above attributes are universal, and that the difference lies in how well people on the left suppress their baser desires for "the common good".

Which gives you no more understanding of UKIP than anyone else. UKIP thrive in totally different environments to densely multi ethnic city communities.

What you're looking for is a vote that'll salve your conscience.

Armchair psychologist as well? I wouldn’t give up your day job.

 

[William of Walworth]

From much earlier, imposs1904 posted in response to my comment

Probably Labour, but here in Swansea East it'll depend on who Sian James' successor-candidate is (she's been excellent albeit obscure, but sadly she's retiring)

TUSC are only standing in Swansea West, otherwise I'd be strongly considering them!

According to the wiki page, Class War's putting up a candidate in Swansea East.

Very tempted I really hope their core policy of lots of pisstaking of the established parties etc is fulfilled though. Need to laugh out loud or the vote won't happen

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, of course you have mate.


Which gives you no more understanding of UKIP than anyone else. UKIP thrive in totally different environments to densely multi ethnic city communities.


Armchair psychologist as well? I wouldn’t give up your day job.

If only you knew just how amusing your reply is, you'd probably curse yourself for providing me with such a good laugh.

 

[Fedayn]

Most likely 'None of the above'. Would vote SSP if they're standing in Glasgow SW but don't think they are.

 

[imposs1904]

Not voting.

what's your constituency?

 

[yield]

I'll be voting for TUSC.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

If only you knew just how amusing your reply is, you'd probably curse yourself for providing me with such a good laugh.

The only joke here is your boast of ‘scars’ and your claim that people only vote Green or Labour to salve their consciences.