by John Walker on May.05, 2005, under The Rest
So you’re voting, aren’t you?
Good.
Not voting is a lot like being incredibly stupid.
Here’s some propaganda for you: Every vote for Lib Dem is a vote for, well, Lib Dem.
Obviously if you’re reading this, you’re not even vaguely considering voting Conservative. Because, you know, if you were you’d realise what a vile, racism-endorsing moron you are, and be far too busy expressing your hatred to those with accents and better tans than you. What’s most amazing is that they’re not even trying to hide it this time. They’ve seen a seam of bubbling racism (see also: nationalism) in the country, and are tapping it enthusiastically. Previously they’ve at least had the good grace to pretend like they weren’t just planning on building giant Keep The Darkies Out fences all around the coast. Hague did at least attempt to tone down his previous plans for “detention camps” for asylum seekers.
(Paxman on newsnight, interviewing a Tory spokesman:
Paxman: So, you’re planning on building detention camps? Or are they concentration camps?
Twat: No! Splutter! How dare you?!
Paxman: So the people in them are free to go?
Moron: Yes.
Paxman: Yes?!
Git: Yes. But if they do, they will be arrested.)
And IDS was good enough to remove those awkward connections with the BNP when he was appointed – firing his advisors who had previously been in the BNP for instance. But no longer are such niceties required. Now they’re just campaigning on, “We plan to turn away people seeking asylum from oppression, so you don’t have to.”
Labour will win, obviously. No one doubts it in any party. The real fight this year is for second place. Labour would obviously like to keep the Tories second, as they propose no threat. Hence, “A vote for Lib Dem is a vote for the Conservatives – vote for Labour.” Cunning way to convince you not to promote the Lib Dems to second place, where they could start making some effective difference. The Tories have to maintain the rather quaint impression that they have a chance of winning. A chance that would require the greatest swing in political history. What they’re really fighting for is their lives – they know too that a Lib Dem vote is a vote for Lib Dem. And they can’t afford that. So they present the fight between themselves and Labour, pretending that there isn’t even another choice.
And the Lib Dems keep making their ridiculously quiet whimpers, but with principles of social action and an attitude of thinking for the greater good over the individual. How I wish they would speak louder.
As Warren Ellis said tonight (and indeed so did I to someone in the pub, as has nearly everyone else), if everyone who said they wanted Lib Dem to win were to actually vote for them, they probably would. But since only one out of three people will vote tomorrow (unless you live in Birmingham, where five out of every three people will vote, it seems), this won’t happen. However, there’s a very real possibility that they could see second place. But only if you get off your apathetic backside and add one more to the box.
May 5th, 2005 on 01:50
You have elections? [/fake ignorance]
May 5th, 2005 on 15:48
I’m off to vote in a minute for the first time in my life.
Whoopee.
May 5th, 2005 on 16:32
I voted at 9.25 this morning in central Bath. There was one other gentleman in the polling station, but he only wanted to use the toilet. (True.) I predict a low turn-out.
May 5th, 2005 on 19:09
I don’t believe that a vote for a party means I completely agree with every aspect of their ideoligy. I voted Conservative because they are the only party who are likely to fight labour on tax rises. I’m also in favour of smaller government, and more choice in health and education. I don’t agree with the Tories on immigration, but I also think that it is just as irresponsible to set no limits on immigration as it is to set strict limits on immigration.
From what I can see, the Lib Dems plan to destroy our economy by giving all our money to pensioners. Or am I just exagerating slighty?
Does it occur to you that there might be reasons for wanting to keep people with no legitimate right to asylum out of this country, other than racism?
I don’t really care enough about politics to carefuly research the positions of all the parties. Does that mean I’m irresponsible or shouldn’t vote? Which is worse?
May 5th, 2005 on 21:56
Everyone in this country has an equal “right” to drive a car on its roads. Thing is, it’s quite dangerous in the hands of people who don’t know what they’re doing, so they make you take a test first to prove you’re at least basically competent. Why the same thing doesn’t happen at polling stations is beyond me.
May 6th, 2005 on 02:31
I think it was irresponsible. You voted for a party who believe in the rights of the individual over the rights of the community. And now they have won in Guildford by 350 votes, and will continue with the 104 years of corrupt government that was only briefly interrupted by the Lib Dems last term.
For intelligent people, there is no good excuse to cast a vote without knowing the position of those for whom you vote. The severity of the decision should be recognised and responded to.
I’m amazed to hear a vote against balanced taxation. I’m more amazed to hear such a deliberate and wilfil dismissal of the Liberal Democrat’s position of social action and the betterment of the community over the individual. Fairly crucial principles, I would have thought.
May 6th, 2005 on 02:40
So, anti, you want to remain selfishly rich, selfishly unwelcoming and selfishly divisive. There’s this needle. You’re not going through its eye.
May 6th, 2005 on 04:09
Antichaos:
1) When you give money to the poorer pensioners, they’ll spend it, which boosts the economy.
2) We need more immigrants; they provide a young workforce who work in the jobs we don’t fill (we have a huge immigrant workforce fruit picking in the Guildford area) and demand goods and real estate, thus boosting the economy.
May 6th, 2005 on 09:49
Well, although they didn’t win in my constituency, I’m glad I voted Lib Dem. Especially as, according to the BBC, they are only 230 votes ahead of the BNP. Had myself, and 230 other people not voted Lib Dem in my area, BNP would be in third place.
60% turnout here too.
May 6th, 2005 on 10:01
I think the country would be a lot healthier if we were all a lot poorer (with more balanced distribution). We could give away all our money to the third world: they’d be helped out of their crushing poverty, we’d feel more humane and healthier (more fresh vegetables, less junk food) and even the Tories would get what the wanted: there would be lower immigration because there was less need and less incentive (we wouldn’t be the fourth richest country any longer).
The argument that immigration is OK because it’s economically viable annoys me: immigrants are being trained in their own country, and then leaving – effectively taking the cost of their education with them. We are the recipients of a brain-drain, just as the States generally is. Again the continuation of the trend will probably tend to increase the trend. I think.
May 6th, 2005 on 13:09
Since when did poorer people in this country start eating more vegetables?
May 6th, 2005 on 13:18
It’s my favourite bonkers argument of the election so far, though. Good work Tim.
May 6th, 2005 on 16:00
Ross, too true, but then I was hoping that the more affluent who are becoming poorer would not ‘let themselves go’ but maintain their foodiness with a lower animal content etc. etc. It’s not something i see happening very soon, however fervent my idealism.
John. Which bit is bonkers again? The argument I dislike, or my argument? I’m getting scared to venture any opinion in your company these days – it’s bound to be pronounced bonkers.
May 6th, 2005 on 17:18
Just the “raise taxes, eat more vegetables” bit.
May 6th, 2005 on 17:57
Bunch of communists ;)
May 6th, 2005 on 18:44
Well I have noticed that round here the people I know are mainly Lib-Dem supporters. Personally I agree with them the most out of the party and here it is Lib/Con, with Lib taking the seat from Con.
But I respect the other candidates for their opinions and bothering to stand etc, and there is probably a grain in truth in what all of them say. You have to go for the party of the most truth I suppose.
But anyhow do you support the Libs dems as they are the new (new) left in your view?
Re: Poorness & Fruit and veg= True. It IS ACTUALLY CHEAPER ALTHOUGH THE MEDIA HAVE NEVER SAID IT AND SAY THE OPPOSITE TO EAT HEALTHILY! 40 or 30 yrs ago you wouldn’t eat a MacDonalds then go home for crisps, a chocolate bisuit and chips (ok extreme example). Straightforward food in small portions for the most part.
Less pointlessly large cars? Less stupid air fresheners (JUST DON’T HAVE A DOG IF YOU HATE THE SMELL!!) and crap bought off the tele.
Downside: Less computers. :P.
See if I had my way I would run a Healthy Green Police State. Where everyone would be happy OR ELSE.
The Lib dems are the next best option.
May 7th, 2005 on 06:13
Tim R: According to economist Jeffery Sachs, we only need to give 0.7% of GDP to help end world poverty. The UK is commited to meeting that target by 2013. We don’t have to bankrupt ourselves to help the poor.
Tim R & Bob: Being poor doesn’t make people eat right. A lot of people boil the fuck out of vegetables, which means they have no nutritious value when it comes to eating. You can eat all the vegetables in the world, but with poor preperation, you’ll get nothing from them. People need better education in this area, they need to learn how to run a household.
Tim R: I used that immigration argument because Antichaos was worried about their effect on the economy.
High immigration doesn’t have to mean a brain drain from poorer countries. In the UK laws are in place that only allow doctors and nurses from certain countries to stay for a limited period, then they have to return to their own countries where they can use their new found wealth and knowledge to help “their own people”.
Please remember however, that many immigrants send their earnings home, which their family will spend on the local economy, which the government taxes, and then spends training more kids to be doctors or on a better health service. In this way, letting people into our country, still helps the country they come from, sometimes much more than if they stayed at home.
I hope that all made some sense.
May 9th, 2005 on 09:28
a lot of sense, thanks. That said, I still think 0.7% is stingy.
May 16th, 2005 on 15:12
The Tories won the majority in England. They are the most sound. They are the most sensible. It is time for England to break away from socialist, bureaucratic Scotland and The North, before we are bled dry in order to fund their crap economy.
May 17th, 2005 on 08:27
Thank you, do come again.