[Politics] Election fever.

[davywavy]

Abraham Lincoln once famously observed that you can fool all the people some of the time and and some of the people all of the time, but not all of them all the time. Perhaps less famously (but possibly unexpectedly), Richard Nixon went further and tried to exactly quantify just how many people you can fool all the time. If you're an incumbent in a democracy, he said, it really doesn't matter how bad you are but some people will always vote for you and no matter how good you are, some people never will. He actually gave an exact figure - 18% - for this proportion of the population.
You can twirl your moustaches, cackle evilly and murderously pursue Penelope Pitstop to your heart's content and at least one member of the Anthill Mob (probably Dum-Dum) will still consider you the best candidate, or, looking at it another way, you can raise the dead from their graves and spray free liquor from every rooftop and about one person in every five would still rather have The Hooded Claw, thank you very much.

I was reminded of this 18% rule by the papers last week, when they reported that opinion polls currently show Labour on 19% and were speculating on how much further support for them may slump. My answer to that would be not much further, unless Nixon was wrong. What's perhaps most interesting about this is that even in the middle of Watergate, Nixon's approval levels didn't drop below 20% suggesting that if we were to hold a straight race between Gordon Brown and Tricky Dicky, Nixon would win by a mile. Now that's political unpopularity.
It's been interesting over the last few years to watch the decline in both Brown and Labour's fortunes. Three or four years ago when I would pop something onto LJ suggesting that the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes I could reliably expect a pro-Brown greek chorus to pop out of the woodwork and start singing the praises of his natty attire. As Brown's manifest nudity became clearer it appears that the cheering section quietly hid their pom-poms in the back of the wardrobe and are pretending that the whole thing never really happened.

Truth may be the daughter of time, but it doesn't half make political debate a lot less fun.

Over the weekend, both the Telegraph and the Guardian led with the same story, and when they agree on something you can be sure that there is something seriously skew-whiff in the state of Denmark. This story was that according to opinion polls, more than two-thirds of people want an general election immediately. This is not all that surprising in the wake of political corruption scandals and economic collapse, and it's also no surprise that the opposition parties (who we may expect to benefit from such an election) are enthusiastically calling for an election too. It sometimes seems that the only person who doesn't want an immediate election is me.
This might surprise you given my well-established loathing for the band of meatheads who we laughingly call our government, but I'm rarely a fan of precipitate action in a crisis. The problem with elections in which one side is plainly going to lose and another plainly going to win (and, barring alien abduction, David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister) is that the obvious winners don't have to try - and that's a bad thing. Think back to 1997 when Blair was so obviously going to romp home that he didn't actually have to make any meaningful policy promises; all he had to do was smile lots, say some fine-sounding but noncommittal words and avoid being arrested for abducting schoolchildren and the election was his. Cameron finds himself in that position now and so he's busily making plenty of 'pledges' but few enough actual written promises - and I rather like to see what politicians actually plan beyond observing that they have a 'passion for excellence' or whatever the management buzzword du jour is.
The LibDems are actually doing rather better and putting forward some interesting and original ideas like the Repeal Bill, which is an excellent notion and something I've been banging on about for years. Indeed, were it not for the fact that the LibDem Constitutional Reform proposals were apparently written by someone with a serious head injury they'd probably have my vote.

But anyway; to summarise. I dislike snap general elections with an obvious winner ahead of time because that winner can avoid engaging with the electorate in meaningful terms. As such I'd say no to an immediate election, in the hopes that it will force some concrete proposals and promises about the people who are going to win it. As I said above; truth is the daughter of time and on this, the time we haven't had yet is just as important as the past.
But what do you think?

[Poll #1406417]

Comments

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

All this hoo-ha over dates; fixed terms is what we need, floating terms is entirely too dubious.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I think 'no third therms' is probably the single best rule we can learn from other systems as well.
Cameron appears to be making the running on the shape of the post-expenses political world, but he's taking the opportunity to be damned quiet on things like the economy and Europe which are just as much - if not more- important in the long term.

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Definitely agree on the no third terms as well; political leaders get themselves worn out, entrenched in and don't want to let go all too easy, despite their bright and cheerful promises at the start of their career.
It also helps to shake things up regularly to ensure that favourites don't sit at the table spoon-feeding "yes sir/madam" for too long.

I agree with you on no election now; a government in chaos is no time for election; get things settled and sorted out then vote in a more stable, challenging environment; get those promises out and concrete*.


*So they can just ignore them later as usual.

[davedevil.livejournal.com]

I would like to see the dust settle a little more and see all the parties take necessary scalps before an election. I would also like to see labour recover in the polls a bit. If the Blair years taught us anything its that a party with a massive majority is a menace.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Really? My ideal outcome for the next election is Labour beaten into 3rd place by the Libdems, for several reasons:
1) Labour do not have any economic credibility left, and George Osbourne is a pasty-faced oaf without the economic brains of a tomato. As such, I'd like to see Vince Cable on the front benches in order to force the Conservatives to raise their game.
2) The Libdems have some great ideas like the repeal bill (recently seized upon by dan Hannan) and I'd like to see some of those ideas pushed for.
3) The libdems are like a court jester; some really funky ideas, but ultimately not someone you'd actually put in charge. however, as a force for shaking things up, they'd probabyl do some good. beating Labour would certainly force Labour to consider it's options and ideas and perhaps consider regaining some credibility.

Certainly I expect to be pushing floating voters and embittered ex-labour people at the libdems come next year.

[calligrafiti.livejournal.com]

you can raise the dead from their graves and spray free liquor from every rooftop and about one person in every five would still rather have The Hooded Claw, thank you very much.

Well, yeah. Free booze is all well and good, but you can't enjoy it in the middle of the zombie apocalypse. Hooded Claw all the way!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You can be on my team.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

What is it about the constitutional reforms of the Libdems you don't like? Bearing in mind I've been too busy to keep up on a lot of these things lately. Usually they don't go much beyond introducing PR, which some of Labour are now backing (probably because they're going to get pasted in FPTP).

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

PR, elected second chamber, scrapping of the royal prerogative.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

I'm still failing to see the problem here.
PR means no wasted votes. It is a trade off, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and seats don't work in concert with a party system.
The Lords is a joke and should be replaced, it's an antiquated atavism.
The Royal Prerogative already is essentially meaningless save for some canny constitutional manoeuvring in a crisis. So really, what difference does scrapping it make?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I fear PR on the basis that it doesn't tend to produce stable governments, whereas FPTP does. I might not like the govt that it does produce, but as a general rule a stable government without the constant small-party horse-trading that PR engenders is preferable.

The Lords has done more int eh last decade to preserve civil liberties than has elected parliament. For that reason alone they're worth supporting; when the alternative is another outlet for party politics (more than Blair made it into, mind), I'll argue against changing it for purely ideological reasons. It works; changing somehting that works because of a personal dislike is foolish.

The Royal prerogative is like a Ships Doctor; the doc can relieve the captain of command at the drop of a hat, he just never does - but the fact that it can be dome is a useful safety valve/stopgap. Once again, why change something that's an overall positive on the basis of a purely emotional reaction?

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

That entry you linked to reminded me of the idea of the Citizen's Wage, which I like more the more I think about it. The only thing that I wonder is how much wailing there would be if the incredibly complicated current system of benefits, JSA etc was abolished, with all the thousands upon thousands of staff currently paid to adminster said system suddenly redundant.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

I'm growing increasingly enamoured of the idea as time goes by. Flat rate income tax and getting rid of the baroque benefits system, all good stuff.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

See, we agree on some things. We'd probably find some points of order to argue over (probably amounts and percentages), but Citizens Basic Income appears to be an idea whose time is coming.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

I'd like to look into it more but IIRC one calculated out proposal puts it at £4,000 per year and the tax rate at around 45%.

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

What we need is time for the Labour party to get rid of Brown, enough dust to settle on the expenses thing for everyone to realise that they are all as bad as each other (except for our local Lib Dem, less than £2k claimed last year!) and enough time for David Cameron's smug train to derail itself.

An early election is fine, just not a knee-jerk one.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You think Cameron might lose?

Care to put you money where your mouth is?

Other

[applez.livejournal.com]

Do as you like. I just want a happy and healthy Britain engaged with the world and my own country.

Re: Other

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

We'll be a bit too skint to do any of that for the forseeable, I'm afraid. It turns out that Gordon Brown was 'investing billions in public services' in the same way that I invested four pints up against a wall on the way home from the pub the other night.

Our best hope is for the promised Falklands oil to be real.

Re: Other

[(Anonymous)]

We do get the opportunity to kick the mainstream politicos next week. I hope you'll all vote. Just not for the big 3.

Re: Other

[applez.livejournal.com]

Well, after you lost your herds to foot & mouth, I thought you'd be satisfied with your Strategic Sheep Reserve.

Re: Other

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

By 'lost to foot and mouth', you mean 'healthy livestock unnecessarily killed and incinerated'?

[fried-chicken.livejournal.com]

Haven't been on LJ overly for ages, but whenever I am your posts always catch my eye.

I definitely think that holding off on an election is the best thing, as people have mentioned previously fixed term is definitely the way to go, but also and perhaps more importantly it allows some of the media smoke to clear.

Currently it really does seem to be the case that the mass majority of people will take the news that's printed in any of the papers as being the facts of the matter without actually looking into it any more themselves, and it's an incredibly dangerous position to find outselves in.

Mass majority is probably overstating it, but worrying high number of people.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Tsk! I produce works of genius daily and people don't come and read them. What is the world coming to?

Politically, the older I get the more I realise just how smart the Romans were in their idea of the will of - and control of - 'the mob'.

[fried-chicken.livejournal.com]

I don't want to go over my weekly quota of genius, otherwise I'll want to build a volcano lair, attach lasers to the heads of sharks and start practising my megalomaniac cackle.

Yes it's strange how ideas like that become more appealing as you realise that at times it's not in peoples best interests for everybody to know the entire story.

For example I have a couple of friends in the banking industry who have said that if the papers had laid off the headlines for a couple of days, and the politicians had lied more a lot of the current climate could have been mitigated.

For example with Northern Rock the reason the other banks didn't see the BoE bailout as a big thing when the news broke is because interbank loans were such a common thing and the week before HBOS had borrowed over twice the amount. But with the spin that it got, panic ensued