Why did the votes get cast/not cast in the way they did/didn't
So lets get passed the votes not cast. Why would you not vote?
a) no one worth voting for
b) nothing worth voting for
c) cant make a decision (all the same or like part of one and part of another manifesto)
d) practical problem (working, on holiday, ill, emergency)
e) something better to do (watching tell, playing games)
f) too much effort
with d) and e) there is little that can be done. Some may say make politics more exciting... good luck with that. maybe make it part of the Lotto draw with £1m to one lucky voter... "in it to win it"
with f) the Lotto may help here too but also online/text/telephone voting would directly reduce the effort needed.
with c) it's things like the Tories saying "We now have a clear mandate to negotiate with Europe" when the campaign focused on the Economy and that is (probably) the main issue that people voted for. Their attention was not drawn to the Tory desire to scrap the Human Rights bill. Labour's campaign focused on their desire to save the NHS, but not to do anything about immigration. If you want something done about both issues where do you go? You may believe that the NHS will not change regardless so you vote for immigration controls, or don't vote at all.
with b) "I'm all right Jack" or "nothing to lose" means that those at both ends of the social spectrum are ignored (largely) by all political parties for all practical purposes. Also those that believe that regardless of who gets in little will change, as businesses and banks run the world.
with c) a big part is the result of the celebrity culture that places style above substance. Not what you will do (or say you will do) but the way you smile and dress. how fluent and confident you are. Ultimately that comes down to upbringing and education which instilled confidence (but not necessarily ideas or morals)
So why did Labour not do better? According to the media they were too left for middle England and too right for Scotland. Taking the media at face value (dangerous and stupid).
Labour (like the Greens) has failed to address the real concern of immigration. People who everyday meet foreigners working in shops, transport, health, agriculture and builders. Immigrants often have less than the poorest already in the country so jump the queue for housing, education, health. Eaton may have its rich overseas students that have pushed up fees but they speak English and have a good primary education, so they do not adversely affect the education of the others. Not so in state schools.
Side thought: - the immigrants trying to cross the Mediterranean and enter Europe through Italy. These are not the poor and destitute of their country but relatively wealthy (paying trafficers) buying their way out. They are not coming to adopt a culture that has give us the wealth they desire. Enterprising they maybe, but put that into changing your own country and for those that can't afford to pay the trafficers.
I find it incredible that we know we live on a finite planet and we (developed and developing countries) use "economics" as our guiding principle to our actions. Yet economics demands growth and if the planet is finite then growth has to be too, therefore economics will eventually fail. In the UK immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out and hence few politicians want to do anything about it. They will not be around when the real problems start.
The god "economy" is so persuasive (yet few understand it) that the Tories kept banging on about it and all the right wing press did too. This put fear in people so the reaction was "I don't understand it but it seems important and it looks like the Tories are the ones to make it work" vote.
LibDems didn't really make their mark during the coalition. What did they do/achieve? Banged on about it after, but not at the time. Would it have been any different without them? So the traditional LibDems shifted to where they thought their vote would have more value.
The Greens (despite their open door immigration policy) and the SDP were the only two to paint a vision of the country and what they wanted for people living here. The others all had point solutions, immigration, economy, NHS, education, Europe. but with no coordinated view about what the country would be like if they were all solved. The SDP had a more personable leader and a lot of momentum from the referendum. They were able to present a well rehearsed, coherent and plausible vision. The Greens by comparison looked like radical left idealist. I suspect that many were put off by the Australian as much as what and how she said it. Regardless the fumbling and brain freeze put them closer to UKIP in terms of credibility.
Finally UKIP. Thank god that's over...Farage can go back to guest appearances on "Have I got news for you"
So lets get passed the votes not cast. Why would you not vote?
a) no one worth voting for
b) nothing worth voting for
c) cant make a decision (all the same or like part of one and part of another manifesto)
d) practical problem (working, on holiday, ill, emergency)
e) something better to do (watching tell, playing games)
f) too much effort
with d) and e) there is little that can be done. Some may say make politics more exciting... good luck with that. maybe make it part of the Lotto draw with £1m to one lucky voter... "in it to win it"
with f) the Lotto may help here too but also online/text/telephone voting would directly reduce the effort needed.
with c) it's things like the Tories saying "We now have a clear mandate to negotiate with Europe" when the campaign focused on the Economy and that is (probably) the main issue that people voted for. Their attention was not drawn to the Tory desire to scrap the Human Rights bill. Labour's campaign focused on their desire to save the NHS, but not to do anything about immigration. If you want something done about both issues where do you go? You may believe that the NHS will not change regardless so you vote for immigration controls, or don't vote at all.
with b) "I'm all right Jack" or "nothing to lose" means that those at both ends of the social spectrum are ignored (largely) by all political parties for all practical purposes. Also those that believe that regardless of who gets in little will change, as businesses and banks run the world.
with c) a big part is the result of the celebrity culture that places style above substance. Not what you will do (or say you will do) but the way you smile and dress. how fluent and confident you are. Ultimately that comes down to upbringing and education which instilled confidence (but not necessarily ideas or morals)
So why did Labour not do better? According to the media they were too left for middle England and too right for Scotland. Taking the media at face value (dangerous and stupid).
Labour (like the Greens) has failed to address the real concern of immigration. People who everyday meet foreigners working in shops, transport, health, agriculture and builders. Immigrants often have less than the poorest already in the country so jump the queue for housing, education, health. Eaton may have its rich overseas students that have pushed up fees but they speak English and have a good primary education, so they do not adversely affect the education of the others. Not so in state schools.
Side thought: - the immigrants trying to cross the Mediterranean and enter Europe through Italy. These are not the poor and destitute of their country but relatively wealthy (paying trafficers) buying their way out. They are not coming to adopt a culture that has give us the wealth they desire. Enterprising they maybe, but put that into changing your own country and for those that can't afford to pay the trafficers.
I find it incredible that we know we live on a finite planet and we (developed and developing countries) use "economics" as our guiding principle to our actions. Yet economics demands growth and if the planet is finite then growth has to be too, therefore economics will eventually fail. In the UK immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out and hence few politicians want to do anything about it. They will not be around when the real problems start.
The god "economy" is so persuasive (yet few understand it) that the Tories kept banging on about it and all the right wing press did too. This put fear in people so the reaction was "I don't understand it but it seems important and it looks like the Tories are the ones to make it work" vote.
LibDems didn't really make their mark during the coalition. What did they do/achieve? Banged on about it after, but not at the time. Would it have been any different without them? So the traditional LibDems shifted to where they thought their vote would have more value.
The Greens (despite their open door immigration policy) and the SDP were the only two to paint a vision of the country and what they wanted for people living here. The others all had point solutions, immigration, economy, NHS, education, Europe. but with no coordinated view about what the country would be like if they were all solved. The SDP had a more personable leader and a lot of momentum from the referendum. They were able to present a well rehearsed, coherent and plausible vision. The Greens by comparison looked like radical left idealist. I suspect that many were put off by the Australian as much as what and how she said it. Regardless the fumbling and brain freeze put them closer to UKIP in terms of credibility.
Finally UKIP. Thank god that's over...Farage can go back to guest appearances on "Have I got news for you"
No comments:
Post a Comment