[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

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Alternatively, let's not have the party politics? It has to be said, it worked extremely well.

As I said to Grim: Proposing changing the Lords is like being the worst car salesman ever: "Sir, I absolutely, one-hundred percent guarantee that this new car I'm selling to you won't run any better than your current model".

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in a possible alternative to a currently bad system. For better or worse, we've already moved away from the system you propose. Aren't you selling a car that has already been sent to the scrap heap. I can't see a return to the old system as a platform any of the parties would adopt, or something people would vote for.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

My position on making changes is usually this: from where we are standing right now, any changes should be positive. As such, no changes you've proposed would be positive - at best, they'd be no better - and as such we should think very hard about whether the change is necessary. I think it isn't.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I'm interested to know how you think a change back to the old style Lords would be implemented, whether any party would have that as a policy on their manifesto and ultimately what sort of people would your Lords have in it and importantly who would select them and what criteria would they use.

Or, is the current system good enough?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

As I say above; I try to look at things as they are right now.
For all that Blair spent the better part of a decade stuffing his patsies into the Lords in the hopes they'd make disagreement go away, the Lords consistently opposed things like the erosion of individual freedoms. It's like the instant they got into the house, some sort of thing in their mind - lets call it a conscience - was awakened by not having to toe the party line. In some cases, taking the long term view wasn't enough to entirely eradicate their history of left wing belief and pandering, but it certainly seemed to have a positive effect on many. Many more, it turns out, than were sat in the commons. As such, I'm cautiously happy with teh Lords as is. They've opposed the most law- and restriction-happy government we've seen since Edward the first and many turns, 9which is often more than her majesty's opoosition have done), and as a result any calls for changing what we've got will have to be backed up with solid argument and a basis in demonstrable benefits.

I believe that's your cue.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

When I have a moment this evening, I'll get back to you.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I hoped you would, but suspected you wouldn't.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You know, it's really rather unfair to leave me on tenterhooks like this.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Still waiting.