David Cameron is no different from Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown is no different from David Cameron.They're all cut from the cloth and it annoys me that the biggest political icon from the last 30 years has been Margaret Thatcher, someone who tried to destroy the working class... it freaks me out you know.
So I don't really think there's anything left to vote for. That's why people don't vote... why people would rather vote for celebrity talent shows than would vote for politics.
I beg to differ on Maggie, but otherwise I reckon he 's right . The terms of debate have narrowed so in this country that there doesn't seem much of a choice to be made.
8 comments:
I was thinking about this topic earlier this week (another one of my filthy 'listening to Radio 4' moments) and came to the idle conclusion that much of the electorate fail to vote because it may be perceived as an arbitrary or even irrelevant activity.
I drew some parallels to the product of my earlier thinking on the subject of recruitment in the military where, in my view, a military could improve recruitment performance by raising rather than lowering its standards, as, and this is the important bit, nobody wants to belong to an organisation that is desperate for them. The essence of this proposition is that people are motivated into any action (including voting) by the perception of value (ie, a feeling of worthiness or societal embrace*).
In the case of suffrage, my proposition (which I remain uncommitted about) would likely advocate voter restriction to a body of 'the citizenship'; the membership of which was to have been awarded for individual social performance. Or put another way: you want an opinion? Earn it.
*Societal embrace? Now I'm just making stuff up.
Nick - interesting point. Not sure how you would put that into practice though. I for once would advocate the opposite - making voting compulsory! Although in this day and age I have no clue how you would put that into practice, and maybe changing the electoral system would help (i.e. giving other parties the possibility of getting into Parliament, which would cause its own problems in terms of government formation - look at Italy for an extreme example). Although I am a big fan of Oasis music, I can't stand the G brothers! And I think that they should keep their oppinions to themselves. In this particular case, it is just an excuse for lazy people not to get out there and vote. It is easy to criticize without doing anything about it.
I'm very much against compulsory voting. It doesn't do anything about the underlying apathy. It justs masks the symptoms of the disease.
Nick, you and I clearly think alike on many things. Your thoughts on military recruitment mirror my thoughts on academia. I like your body of citizenship concept too. I used to argue that we should have a 'general competence' certificate earned by examination like a driving license--nothing too heavy--the holding of which would entitle the
competent to do things such as notarize documents, self-prescribe a broad range of drugs etc. So add voting to the list. The downside of being certified competent is you'd have your right to sue restricted.
There is a rule that you only fully appreciate the things that you have earnt.
Chris Boardman (Olympic and World Champion and TdF yellow jersey winning British cyclist), writing about coaches and coaching in his book (referenced below) about motivation:
'I might even become a coach myself when I retire, if I can find the right athlete. But if I did coach someone, I would be sure to demand money, and quite a lot of it, not for the money in itself, but as a means of getting the athlete's attention.'
This is critical, I think, and for democracy to be effective, is opposite in effect to compulsory voting.
I also wonder whether my proposition might preclude the ignorant from voting. Should an individual have to demonstrate political understanding before being let loose in a village hall voting booth with a paper slip and a big red crayon?
Boardman, Chris (2000), 'The Complete Book of Cycling' (Transworld: London), p.171
David, I just want to say one thing: hey where's the shower cap!
Ok. So what about this. At the age of 18 you get the right to vote. If you fail to vote on three occasions you loose that right for a period of 10 years in all elections. It might make people somewhat less cavalier about a right that many don't have.
I think comulsory voting is an absolute load of old toss. Once again I feel odd taking this line given that my personal politics are not really in any way populist, but I just find it weird, annoying and characteristically Alice Through The Looking Glass that the political class responds to apathy among the electorate with either gimmickry (internet voting - because the sort of voting we've had for ever is "too hard") or coercion. The possibility that the problem may be one of effective disenfranchisement or of the parties not offering up anytihng the public might want to vote for doesn't hit the radar. It's the capital punishment non-debate all over again.
On the issue of celebrities spouting guff, this is a particularly ripe example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6378107.stm
The Independent (I don't partake, it's my flatmate's daily of choice) had a full page cover story last week, "Not in Our Name" with the page covered in mugshots of people coming out to oppose the government's Trident replacement policy and the apparent lack of debate. Perhaps a fifth of them were serious people (Tim Garden etc). Then there were the usual suspects - Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn etc. The rest were all celebrities and this apparently serious publication apparently feels that the fact that arty types are coming out against nukes in and of itself should be seen to make a powerful and representative statement. Quite why the strategic and philosophical musings of Emma Thompson, Thom Yorke and Vivienne Westwood should have more impact on the matter at hand than those of, say, the bloke who drove my taxi last week, is beyond me.
I'd get started on Bono next to annoy Professor Farrell, but this is getting ridiculously long.
Also Harold Pinter.
Noooo, no, no Anthony. When it comes to reporting of celebs' views on world politics - I'm TOTALLY with you. Who cares, but really, what they think? Some fools, I guess, since comics like the Indo publish such guff. But not me.
Bono is the exception, and only when it comes to trade and debt, and only because he has gone to considerable length to educate himself on this issue. And even then. I'd rather an academic perspective.
Once an academic. Always an academic.
Post a Comment