DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

You don't really need the difference between those two instances explained to you, do you? And no, it has nothing to do with which of them you agree with.

Conflicted about spoilt ballot papers, on one hand you're protesting about the legitimacy of the system, on the other hand are there really no smaller parties that overlap with most of your views - Socialist/Green/whatever? Not voting for minority parties you broadly agree with further delegitimises the system by entrenching the power of the main parties.

― Matt DC, Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:14 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I got involved with the Young Greens and was overwhelmed by how a) useless they were and b) interested in themselves as politically ambitious individuals they were

― light will have borne the eternal thing (imago), Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:16 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What we're most concerned with are people who don't go out and vote. When only 12% of 18-25 y/os voted in the last election it means they get the shortest shrift when it comes to government decisions. If (especially) younger voters are seen to be indifferent to policy, there's not really much in the way of defending against huge rises in tuition fees and other such rubbish. If all 6m who didn't vote (through apathy, disgust, indifference, insecurity or otherwise) either went out and picked a candidate or spoilt their ballot, at least it would be counted. Not sure what it would achieve, but it would be significant enough for people to take notice and question where things are right now.

AFAIK there aren't really a whole lot of left-wing or alternative parties in my area. It also feels (to me) that many of the ones that are out there come across as rather ineffective, too bogged down in lefty infighting, old-school "comradery" and CCCP-esque imagery to present a serious challenge to the mainstream parties. Asking for equality and fairness shouldn't be seen as a radical or dangerous idea, but the more pompous and doctrinaire the left becomes, the more it pushes people away.

Essentially what we're saying is - you don't have to choose a side if you don't want to, but you do have the option of spoiling your vote, which in a democratic system is better than not voting at all.

Darragh, you clearly have a reading and comprehension problem wrt my posts above:

I am not alone in being fed up with inappropriately snarky or 'defiant' outbursts by public servants who ignore an obligation to conduct themselves in a non-divisive, professional manner when dealing with members of the public they serve. Some of the worst examples take place on social media, where people are tweeting in an official capacity, for all to see.

The Home Office worker in your second grab was giving a caller the correct by-the-book information, rather than directing that caller in a disingenuous way so their complaint would disappear. She may have commiserated with the caller in so doing, but her actions and directions were correct and honest: whenever there is a media push around 'illegal migrants' it only creates fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst those of us who have migrated here to live. It can be measured in polls of those affected. There's also the small matter of the complainant's perspective in relating the conversation.

As to the voting thing, Labour need only look at its reduced majority post-Iraq if they really want to know where all the votes went.

Also only an idiot would fail to recognise the difference between one employee going privately off-message and the government effectively changing the remit of the institution so its job is to street-team partisan policies and spread deliberate face-saving misinformation. Obviously this happened under Labour as well but has arguably become worse as the importance of social media has grown.

I've never voted in a general election. Even way back in the day when I was a least a little interested in who was going to govern the country voting would have been pointless because of the constituency in which I live. Even in '97 when Blair was sweeping the nation the Conservatives won by more than 24% over the LibDems here. I probably would have voted under PR at some point in the last 20 years. Now, I'm not so sure.

I object when what are supposed to be impartial civil servants post clearly partisan things on social media, or mouth off in statements.

"Impartiality" in the civil service is not about not taking sides, but about supporting the government of the day regardless of their political persuasion or policies. Supporting policies you disagree with goes with the job.

This line does cloud things though

"You must not:
• act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests."

Dunno how you do that and impartially implement government policy when the policy favours and/or discriminates.

Support as in 'provide administrative structure' - fine. Partisan notions of support, eg 'that's my team', not so much.

My prob is that the constituency I'm in is shared with a town that I've only ever visited once and involves a reasonable drive through country lanes to get to.

Well yes and no, even in the press office you support the government, not necessarily the party in power, so there are limits to what you can and can't support even then, especially if Tory policy clashes with coalition policy, or you're promoting a policy that won't come into force until after the election.

This is a slightly dodgy one because govt policy has been shown to be illegal, and the aim of the communications is solely to make it look like the govt hasn't lost the case.

@Ed_Miliband
Red sox champions in 2004, 2007 and now 2013. First time winning world series at home since 1918 #redsox

He's a big US sports fan and went to school in Boston for a time.

Boston, Lincolnshire

Grant Shapps writes to Ed Miliband urging him to "condemn" tactics alleged to have been used by Unite union against Ineos

Cunts.

If Mili has any sense, he'll ignore that cretin. It still amazes me that his lovely older brother (the one in Big Audio Dynamite) shares genetic material with such a flaming arsehole.

it's the senior managers from Ineos who are the real victims here *wipes away tear*

the one in Big Audio Dynamite

Come again?

Wikip has it that Mick Jones is his cousin.

Ah!

Not voting for minority parties you broadly agree with further delegitimises the system by entrenching the power of the main parties.

Exactly. Voting for any party involves taking a leap and accepting that they'll disappoint you in some ways but it's worth supporting them because you share broad values. And that doesn't mean voting Labour if that sticks in your craw - there are other options.

I'm in Athens at the moment reporting on the Greek political situation and it makes more extreme claims itt about the "illegitimacy" of UK democracy look silly tbh. In Greece the disillusioned young left have the courage to make a choice, whether that be Syriza or the non-voting anarchists. Of course the political culture is very different, and perhaps only a desperate situation makes such choices both available and necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Nb-XgTAzw

xps Grant's older brother Adrian Shapps plays with his cousin in BAD.

Andre Shapps hasn't been in BAD for sixteen years, and only joined in the "Big Audio" era, post-BAD II.

Oops, André. Been years since I've seen him - he was friends with an ex-ILXor. Now he's some sort of pierced steampunk.

Poor sod... being Grant Shapps' brother that is, not being a pierced steampunk, though now you come to mention it

Does he ever get mistaken for Grant?

André has a ridiculous handlebar moustache and bifurcated beard these days, so maybe not so much.

Teenage Grant went to BBYO (B'nai B'rith Youth Organization) leadership camp with my good high school friend L. Both of them have Famous Musician cousins. They were pen/friends for about five years, even through a massive accident that nearly killed him, but when she moved here to live a few years back, she contacted him (he was an MP by then, but wasn't yet famous for being a massive chode). His response was basically 'who are you?' so I guess the rest of his bellendry has to be completely in character.

Voting for any party involves taking a leap and accepting that they'll disappoint you in some ways but it's worth supporting them because you share broad values. And that doesn't mean voting Labour if that sticks in your craw - there are other options.

a) all of the major UK parties have more broad values in common with each other than they have in common with any voter who doesn't believe in the current economic and political status quo. none of said parties are committed to or apparently interested in making any meaningful changes to the status quo.

b) there are no other options in the majority of constituencies during a general election.

defending the existing political system is to make a claim that it is plausibly going to deliver changes needed to make the UK less destructive of human and environmental resources. fine if that's what you believe. please stop patronisingly pretending it's the only game in town.

on the other hand, ignore me because i've decided i'm not going to argue the toss with defenders of the political status quo any more, it makes me either more radge or more depressed than i wanna be.

I'm as cynical as anyone but why not vote Green? Given executive power they would end up as bad as anyone but until that point the more representation they have, the more they can influence the political dialogue in (imo) a good way.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/11/police-selling-grant-shapps-software-may-have-been-fraud/

I was considering spoiling my ballot at the last election, but when I got to the polling station I was too embarrassed and just voted for the Labour candidate.

I'd be worried about spoiling it in the 'wrong' way, I think. I remember this older trot guy I knew when I was at university telling me how he'd written 'FOUR BOSSES' LACKEYS' on his ballot, but I'd feel too awkward to do that, I'd be worried that my self-consciousness would somehow show through in the way that I wrote it, and would be obvious to whoever counted the ballot.

lol well at least older trot guy had satisfaction of backing the winner

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24850921

On Newsnight last month, presenter Jeremy Paxman berated comedian Russell Brand, who has urged revolution and non-participation in elections, for not bothering to vote.

But Paxman later admitted he did not vote in a recent election "because I thought the choice so unappetising".

Green's policies are relatively sound, but they're, uh, they're the Green Party. They seriously need an image overhaul, possibly a name change, if they ever want to get a majority on their side.

This whole 'Brand owned Paxman on Newsnight' thing bothers me a bit. Why does everything have to be about slamming people down all the time? I figured Paxo was pretty much in agreeing with Brand on a number of points, but it's his job to challenge his interviewees and ask them tough questions.

to what do you relate Pingu Unchained

Uh, what? In general?

Why does everything have to be about slamming people down all the time?

They seriously need an image overhaul, possibly a name change, if they ever want to get a majority on their side.

aren't you arguing against yourself a bit here?

i say this not in a snippy way but as illustration of how easy unconscious doublethink is re: the democratic process

when your party is too niche and indie for even ilx to get on board you got problems

Hi NV, not sure how these two things relate? One's about how people perceived the Brand vs Paxo debate, i.e as an argument rather than a discussion. the other's about the Green Party as a brand and how they're generally perceived as the hippie tree-hugging party despite having a much wider and more sound remit than simply concentrating on environmental issues. I just think they could do with a look at themselves if they're going to be the major alternative for mainstream left wing voters.

you're talking about perceptions and not politics?

no doubt people campaigning in elections need to get their policies and messages out as clearly as possible to largest possible number of people. when you step into the realm of "branding" and "image" then you're entering the kind of apolitical popularity contest that lies at the heart of the dissatisfaction with the existing system that Brand (amongst lots of others, i'd prefer to keep him out of it as a celebrity voice) is articulating

no political party's "problem" is that their image isn't right - that just leads to trying to win a game you shouldn't be playing in the first place. tbh when the Green Party adopted a formal leader in this country it felt like a bullshit concession to ad agency politics to me

I don't think the notion that the greens are perceived as hippie tree-huggers is particularly accurate, actually. I think they are condescended-to and largely ignored by mass media, but equally they are pretty dreadful at communicating their message. This is possibly partly down to having no money - even the BNP and something I've never heard of called the Christian Party received more in donations at the last election, so having even the very modest success they've had is quite an achievement.

The British public are, I believe, largely sympathetic to environmental issues in a kind of airy theoretical way. There's a reason Cameron draped himself in green policies before the last election. The problem arises when you ask people to make concrete changes to their way of life. But what I'm getting at is that I really don't think branding is the issue.

tbh when the Green Party adopted a formal leader in this country it felt like a bullshit concession to ad agency politics to me

but it also arguably resulted in raising caroline lucas's profile to a level where she was able to get elected to parliament, and i think that as such she's doing an amazing job. and then once she got elected, she gave up the leadership and now a second person might get the same boost in an election. a smart move campaignwise but also somewhat of a rejection of the leadership concept?

ha i wasn't totally aware of that Nick. that's quite savvy, maybe?

there's a whole area here about playing the game, entryism, using the tools at your disposal, the ends justifying the means, etc

i guess to be fully honest i shd confess that i have very little (okay, no) faith in the capacity of the parliamentary system to make the changes i think the world needs, and that i think it is better to be honest in political campaigning than to use the kind of semi-honesty involved in PR, marketing etc even for "noble" ends, and that, like Matt, i strongly doubt that a party that was honest about the kind of socioeconomic changes that the world needs will be able to win anything like an influential base within a coalition government, never mind a workable majority

and also that parties should be based on the political convictions of their members and do their utmost to win other people to their cause, not focus group themselves into enough votes to be in gov at any cost

Been writing this between calls all morning so sorry if it reads a bit wonky, but...

Branding is a loaded term I guess. I think Matt's a bit closer to what I'm getting at. Even though I advocate ballot-spoiling over not voting at all, ideally I'd prefer to believe in and vote for something if that something seemed like a viable option. Looking at the Green Party's policies, they're the closest that fall in line with my own beliefs. I'm sure a lot of other people I know - including those who don't vote, either through apathy, disillusionment or disinterest - could be tempted to vote Green if they checked out their policies. But I know why they don't, and it's largely down to perception. Either they see the Greens as a one-issue party (which they're not), or that they exude a kind of specialist agenda associated with free-spiritism/activism/airiness that doesn't gel with everyone's outlook.

The Green Party kind of remind me of my local gig venue. It's run by a really nice old chap, an ex-Pink Floyd roadie, who cares about his community and the local music scene more than anything else in the world and yet can't seem to figure out why fewer and fewer people are coming to his club, but the answer's glaringly obvious - it's a hippie dive. Well over ten years ago he decked it out in brightly-painted motifs, pictures of dancing figures, ravey day-glo tribal patterns etc. It was a bit old fashioned even then, even if it did fit in with the character of the place and some of the people who went there (Dreadzone and Zion Train still make regular appearances). But shit, if it looked old-fashioned then, it's positively anachronistic now. The town is booming with young people, many of whom are interested in live music and forming bands and yet the club's having serious trouble bringing in these new audiences. The owner puts it down to the smoking ban, the popularity of the X-Factor, the recession, people being more interested in pubs and clubs than live music, people not being interested in their scene any more, a lack of quality bands etc - all of which I'm sure are contributing factors to a lack of door sales; but ask anyone under 25 why they don't visit the place and they'll tell you it's because it's a hole. They're embarrassed to go there. The fluorescent paint is peeling off the walls, the floor's covered in gum, and it simply doesn't factor into the mindset and aesthetic of someone born after 1990. The problem is no one's got the heart to tell the owner this, because it's his club and he's put his heart and soul into it (and besides, he hasn't got the money to redecorate anyway so pointing out this elephant in the room would be pointless).

Anyway, forgive the extended analogy, but since the guy used to be a Green rep in our area, I've always seen them as having similar image problems - heart's in the right place, but more has to be done, somehow, to get people from outside the immediate circle to support them. It's not about selling out their values, but it is about trying to appeal to more people by saying 'hey, you don't like the way things are; you're against the major parties and their policies and fibs; these are our policies - you agree with a lot of them, so why not vote for them?. We're not just about fracking and recycling and wearing camo; and we represent a SERIOUS alternative to the status quo, not a fringe party or a protest vote or a waste of time'.

problem with your analogy is that the green party got their highest ever share of the vote at the last election and got an mp for the first time. they're on the up afaict