Vote Cock!

Are you feeling the Tory blues? Do New Labour make you turn red? Are the yellows way too mellow? Do the Greens make you queasy and do the BNP and UKIP actually make you spew? Well, have you ever considered writing ‘COCK’ across your European Election ballot paper?

With too many parties not representing what you believe and politicians becoming more distrustful by the day, it is an attractive option not to cast your democratic vote and to throw it into the bin out of a matter of protest.

But have you considered the damage you are doing to society?

Imagine today’s political landscape with New Labour in power and the Tories waiting outside Number 10 with a sledgehammer, the LibDems are far behind, with the Greens and ‘the others’ lurking nearby. You feel that none of these parties represent you, so you refuse to vote, or you feel a party like the Greens does, but you refuse to vote because ‘they are never going to get into power’. Well a refusal to vote is only going to strengthen the New Labour/Tory dominance of government and they will never ever represent you or do things in your interest. Why, I hear you ask.

Look at the situation like this, in this example there are 210 voters in total:

Party A have 100 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

Party B have 80 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

There are 30 voters who don’t know who to vote for, or are thinking of not voting.

Who are the party’s going to target policies towards? That’s right, the 30 voters. If parties already have their diehard voters then they are much more willing to create policies for the other 30 voters to encourage them to vote for them, either to get into power (Party B) or to consolidate power (Party A).

Now if the 30 didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like any of the parties or felt the party they wanted never will get into power then Party A will create policies that benefit their own diehard voters and Party B will have more policies like Party A in order to attract Party A’s voters and get into power. They become the same, and politics/democracy becomes diluted.

Let’s now say for example that Party A and Party B are both right-wing, both still with 100 diehards and 80 diehards respectively. A new party, Party C, comes along who are left-wing, and those 30 turn to Party C because they are different to Party A and B. In an attempt to win back those 30 votes, Party A and B will create a few more left-wing policies in order to turn those 30 towards them, but still keep policies that are right-wing in order to keep their diehards voting for them instead of switching between Parties A and B (because they are the same). There is therefore a lot more choice and parties are becoming more representative.

That is why it is important to vote.

But still you may argue there is no party that represents me!

That maybe true, but did you know that in the UK spoilt ballot papers are still considered as part of the voting turnout. That means if 100 people vote and a Party has 20 votes (diehards or not) that Party will look at winning over the other 80 voters- even if those 80 put in spoilt ballot papers because it is shown that 100 people will vote.

Party’s will only direct policies at those who do vote. Why should they worry about those who don’t vote, especially when things like SCOPA stop you protesting.

So even if there isn’t a party that tickles your fancy still cast your vote, but just make sure across the ballot paper in big bold letters you write ‘THE BNP ARE SICK DISGUSTING RACIST COCKS’

How to do it bad, how to do it good

What is obvious from the ‘credit crunch’, the attack on privacy and now the MP’s expenses saga is that in the upcoming European Elections the minority partys are going to drastically increase their electorial strength.

So it has come as a bit of a surprise to see the (New) Labour Party Election broadcast focus entirely on David Cameron, and what Cameron’s policies would do to the country. I would have to say that i agree with them on every single point, however as an European Election Broadcast it is pretty poor.

Not once does it talk about their own policies. Granted, they are the ones in power and we can see the shambles of some of their policies, but still, come on, you got to have some sort of manifesto.

Secondly, (New) Labour have 19 MEP’s. Why didn’t the broadcast focus upon the work they have been doing?

Finally, talking about how bad Cameron is is all well and good- i generally support it, but, this is a European election, not a local election. Of course the results of these elections go someway to showing what will happen at the next general election and results going either way is either going to strengthen or weaken either side, but still, this is a European election!

Here is a much better party election broadcast:

Note a few things from this: they talk about the great work they have been doing, they talk about themselves and not other parties, they tell you they are not a one issue party as a lot of people like to suggest, they talk about what they will do, they say that going green is not something you should be nagged into doing but that it is up to the government to help you, and finally, they are not a racist facist party.

I’m voting Green

********************

Here’s another Green Party broadcast from 1999

To abstain or not to abstain, that is the question

It’s only fair that in a debate or argument that both sides should be able to put their point of view across or defend their position or to hit back at other people’s claims. In this spirit, i would like to post here the response by Cllr Emma Webster to reports that she abstained. This is her comment on an article on a popular local blog site:

Please note I did not abstain from the vote, I was unable to participate because the company that I work for are promoting another site being considered as part of the consultation.

After taking legal advice I was advised that it would be inappropriate for me to be involved in the vote and I therefore removed myself from the meeting and the vote. I did not as you have reported abstain.

I am in the process of taking further advice so that I am in a position to be able to speak against the proposal when it comes before a later meeting.

Okay, so didn’t abstain… and still didn’t vote, or amend, or propose, or voice opposition. Let’s see what direction her campaigning over Pincents Hill will take- or will a conflict of interests plague her at very attempt to stop this development taking shape?

I have just noticed that on the Reading Chronicle Website the article about the Tory councillors being accused of bottling it has been removed. It was posted on the website on 30 April 2009, whereas other articles about Pincents Hill going back to 28 August 2008 can all still be accessed. What? I’m not hinting at conspiracy! *rings lawyers*

Tory Pincents Hill Bulls***

I wrote a very short while ago about how the local Tories have betrayed the community by allowing the Local Development Framework to be voted through with Pincent’s Hill as one of the proposed sites to build on. Well now i dirtied myself by stumbling through the West Reading Conservative website where i found this.

There are two quick points i want to make. The first is the results of the survey they put round the local area about building on Pincent’s Hill, i think the results are pretty conclusive:

87% of respondents felt that the Government’s housing target of a minimum of 10,500 homes between 2006-2026 for West Berkshire was not reasonable nor acceptable to existing local residents
A massive 85% of respondents want NO development at all on the Pincents Hill Site
96% of the respondents are concerned about the impact of traffic from any development
87% are concerned about the loss of a green space
86% are concerned about the pressure on local public services such as education
82% are worried about the impact of development on the environment and wildlife

The second point is the comments by Birch Copse ward Tory Cllr Emma Webster. Before reading it remember that she abstained from the vote for the Local Development Framework because of a ‘conflict of interests’.

“I very much hope that Pincents Hill is not included as a preferred site in West Berkshire’s Local Development Framework plans (LDF) and the feedback from 896 local people clearly demonstrates the strong level of local feeling about this issue.  The battle to save the Pincents Hill site from development is one which we must win.”

Applauding a Tory

I never thought I would say this, but I respect and applaud Tory MP David Davis on his resignation from the House of Commons. His reasoning (obviously one of many) for this was to force a by-election in the constituency of Haltemprice and Howden in order to debate the issue of the 42-day terror detention limit.

Maybe Davis is just trying to impose more election woe upon New Labour, but nonetheless, Davis, along with all but one Tory MP opposed the 42-day terror detention expansion. Sadly for the British public, the limit was passed in the Commons, and will now come under attack within the House of Lords.

There is not one reason for the terror detention limit to have to be increased. If the police cannot find enough evidence to charge somebody of a suspected terror incident or conspiracy to commit terror within 28 days then the chances are they never did or never were.

But let us not forget why we should oppose the increase in the detention limit; our civil liberties. British people have been fighting for generations for our rights, and now we are in a age where we are willing to throw them all away without an ounce of fight.

There was a time when the sacrifice of our rights and liberties would be the last straw. However, with large public support for this extension, and the fact that ID Cards are being debated, it seems that any terrorist threat has succeeded. The whole concept of terrorism is to scare people and to therefore control them, and so be it, it has.

I wonder whether these people supporting the extension (and on a larger scale ID Cards), are the same people who feel that it means nothing to be British any more, and that there is a lack of a British identity. Where has the patriotism of the British gone; we will never give up, we keep fighting, and fight for our principles, we will never give in- Churchill will be turning in his grave.

Craig Murray commented at People & Planet’s Shared Planet event in 2007 that MI5 have suggested there are around 2000 terrorist suspects in the UK, however, Murray notes that considering the number of terrorist attacks in the UK, they are perhaps the most inefficient terrorists of all time.

I would also like to point out that there have not been any terror arrests that have required more than the current 28-days. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the need to extend the limit.

Yet we are now at a stage where the limit has been passed – in the Commons at least – and where there is large public support for it. People say this country is going down the pan, they create scapegoats out of ‘foreigners’. I say if it is going down the pan, it is because British people have lost British principles. We no longer have the fight within us to secure our own and others liberties. We would rather throw them all away and let any actual and fictional terrorists win.