![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I find it difficult to get worked up about politics these days. Back in the old days it was rare a day went by without the last government doing something like repealing the Magna Carta, my blood pressure spiking, and steam coming out of my ears making a noise like a train whistle, but these days I just can't bring myself to get worked up about the coalition. I've found it difficult to express why that is, but over the weekend I was watching Countryfile with a report about raw sewage being dumped into the sea, and a campaign group called "Surfers against sewage" who are complaining against it.
"So if the outflow pipes stop flowing does that mean the seawater becomes clean?" asked the presenter of a man in a wetsuit.
"No", was the reply. "The water is still filthy but at least there's no turds in it".
And that's kinda how I feel about politics at the moment.
Anyway, one of the things that a small but vocal minority of the political world has been getting all worked up about is one of the agreements in the coalition arrangement: specifically, a public referendum on a change to the voting system and the introduction of AV (Alternative voting).
Now you might think this would be something I'd get interested in. Despite my malaise as regards the current government, I'm still a political creature and the methods of selection of government - and the mandate from which they derive their authority - is a matter of considerable interest to me. However, the AV referendum has moved me not one bit. But why not?
In part it's due to the campagns being run. The Yes campaign does not seem to really have had any idea what it has been campaigning for and as a result it's been all over the place. On the one hand, I've been reassured that the change to AV is a small, incremental change that I needn't worry about. On the other hand, I've been told it's an important landmark of political change in the UK. I don't think it can be both of those things. The Yes campaign has also banged on about how the system guarantees 'fairer' votes, and as far as I'm concerned anyone using the word 'fair' in political debate deserves to be punched, good and hard, in the face. 'Fair' is one of the most debased words in modern politics, and from what I can make out literally translates as "I won't be any worse off, but someone I don't like will be". Telling me your system will make things 'fair' is a fast shorthand for telling me you aren't capable of making a coherent argument so you're going to use emotional blackmail instead. Don't do it.
On the other hand the No campaign has focussed on the fact that AV doesn't work very well and would be expensive, but if not spending lots of money on stuff which doesn't work very well was actually important then government policy on pretty much everything would be wildly different, so that's a non-argument.
What both campaigns have studiously avoided is the question of what voting and elections are for, and where power derives from. The power of the executive derives from the consent of the governed, and there's little evidence that since the introduction of universal suffrage this has not been the case in the UK, and no evidence at all that the majority are not content with this arrangement; in 2005 a government was formed with 35% of the vote and the electorate consented to this. The other constitutional argument for voting is that the purpose of elections is to provide stable government for a set period, and, once again, there's little evidence to suggest that FPTP does not do this. As such: a system of stable government which derives from the consent of the governed. The No campaign would have done well to point this out. The Yes campaign needed to work harder to demonstrate why it would achieve those things better than FPTP, which it hasn't.
I think one of the biggest problems the Yes campaign has had is that it has been largely a debate with it's own supporters. Many of the adverts and slogans I've seen from the Yes campaign have been either ill-spirited jibes at those who disagree with them or derived from an assumption of moral superiority over those who disagree (or are simply undecided). Neither of those things engage me. In fact, the Yes campaign has done more to alienate me than the No campaign has done to convince me. Both the yes and no campaigns have spent disproportionate amounts of time questioning the sources of each others funding without acknowledging the failings in their own (one largely finded by people who'll make large profits from the change, the other largely funded by people with a financial interest in the status quo) and I've found the hypocrisy on both sides offputting.
The problem is that coming out of the end of all of the incessant whining about the referendum I find that I couldn't give two beans about it. As a change it's incremental, probably meaningless and - perhaps most importantly - I'll make anyone a cash bet of up to a hundred quid here and now and that the result is going to be No anyway.
On the other hand, despite me not caring which way the vote goes, I do have a moral responsibility to vote which puts puts me in a quandry of what to do? After all, what did George Formby punch Hitler for if not to ensure I got to vote?
Anyway, after a lengthy chat with the she-David, we've come to what seems to us to be a good way to accomodate our moral responsibility to vote whilst simultaneously indicating that we neither of us care much either way about the outcome. One of us is going to vote yes and the other no, thereby cancelling each other out.
Works for me - and Yes fans? You've had a year to convince me. You've failed. I'm probably one of the most politically engaged people you know, and I. Don't. Care. Next time, try running a positive campaign rather than one which assumes you started out holding the moral high ground and you might do better.
"So if the outflow pipes stop flowing does that mean the seawater becomes clean?" asked the presenter of a man in a wetsuit.
"No", was the reply. "The water is still filthy but at least there's no turds in it".
And that's kinda how I feel about politics at the moment.
Anyway, one of the things that a small but vocal minority of the political world has been getting all worked up about is one of the agreements in the coalition arrangement: specifically, a public referendum on a change to the voting system and the introduction of AV (Alternative voting).
Now you might think this would be something I'd get interested in. Despite my malaise as regards the current government, I'm still a political creature and the methods of selection of government - and the mandate from which they derive their authority - is a matter of considerable interest to me. However, the AV referendum has moved me not one bit. But why not?
In part it's due to the campagns being run. The Yes campaign does not seem to really have had any idea what it has been campaigning for and as a result it's been all over the place. On the one hand, I've been reassured that the change to AV is a small, incremental change that I needn't worry about. On the other hand, I've been told it's an important landmark of political change in the UK. I don't think it can be both of those things. The Yes campaign has also banged on about how the system guarantees 'fairer' votes, and as far as I'm concerned anyone using the word 'fair' in political debate deserves to be punched, good and hard, in the face. 'Fair' is one of the most debased words in modern politics, and from what I can make out literally translates as "I won't be any worse off, but someone I don't like will be". Telling me your system will make things 'fair' is a fast shorthand for telling me you aren't capable of making a coherent argument so you're going to use emotional blackmail instead. Don't do it.
On the other hand the No campaign has focussed on the fact that AV doesn't work very well and would be expensive, but if not spending lots of money on stuff which doesn't work very well was actually important then government policy on pretty much everything would be wildly different, so that's a non-argument.
What both campaigns have studiously avoided is the question of what voting and elections are for, and where power derives from. The power of the executive derives from the consent of the governed, and there's little evidence that since the introduction of universal suffrage this has not been the case in the UK, and no evidence at all that the majority are not content with this arrangement; in 2005 a government was formed with 35% of the vote and the electorate consented to this. The other constitutional argument for voting is that the purpose of elections is to provide stable government for a set period, and, once again, there's little evidence to suggest that FPTP does not do this. As such: a system of stable government which derives from the consent of the governed. The No campaign would have done well to point this out. The Yes campaign needed to work harder to demonstrate why it would achieve those things better than FPTP, which it hasn't.
I think one of the biggest problems the Yes campaign has had is that it has been largely a debate with it's own supporters. Many of the adverts and slogans I've seen from the Yes campaign have been either ill-spirited jibes at those who disagree with them or derived from an assumption of moral superiority over those who disagree (or are simply undecided). Neither of those things engage me. In fact, the Yes campaign has done more to alienate me than the No campaign has done to convince me. Both the yes and no campaigns have spent disproportionate amounts of time questioning the sources of each others funding without acknowledging the failings in their own (one largely finded by people who'll make large profits from the change, the other largely funded by people with a financial interest in the status quo) and I've found the hypocrisy on both sides offputting.
The problem is that coming out of the end of all of the incessant whining about the referendum I find that I couldn't give two beans about it. As a change it's incremental, probably meaningless and - perhaps most importantly - I'll make anyone a cash bet of up to a hundred quid here and now and that the result is going to be No anyway.
On the other hand, despite me not caring which way the vote goes, I do have a moral responsibility to vote which puts puts me in a quandry of what to do? After all, what did George Formby punch Hitler for if not to ensure I got to vote?
Anyway, after a lengthy chat with the she-David, we've come to what seems to us to be a good way to accomodate our moral responsibility to vote whilst simultaneously indicating that we neither of us care much either way about the outcome. One of us is going to vote yes and the other no, thereby cancelling each other out.
Works for me - and Yes fans? You've had a year to convince me. You've failed. I'm probably one of the most politically engaged people you know, and I. Don't. Care. Next time, try running a positive campaign rather than one which assumes you started out holding the moral high ground and you might do better.
