[Politics] Election fever.
May. 27th, 2009 11:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyAbraham 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]
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]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:17 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:23 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:24 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:26 am (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:48 am (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:54 am (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 10:59 am (UTC)As The Lords stands today it just seems to be a roadblock of old duffers, while it has blunted or at least slowed down some of the excesses of post 9/11 legislation it's also pointlessly stood in the way of some much needed reform and doesn't represent... anyone. Keeping something because of tradition is just as - if not more - foolish as changing something 'just because'.
The Royal prerogative is a purely ceremonial holdover, do you really think if the Queen (or heaven forfend Charles) tried to get up to any shenanigans anyone would pay any attention to it even for a second? It's just empty tradition at this point.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:06 am (UTC)I've no interest in maintaining the Lords out of tradition. I'm interested in maintaining it because it works really well and none of the proposed alternatives seem to offer the same benefits.
Do I think...? I reckon if HM were to have a quiet word this afternoon to some members of the Security Services, Brown'd be a dead man by this time tomorrow. She won't, obviously, but I can dream...
I think a good alalogy to the Royal prerogative is that of a Queen Bee; she could sting once only. If HM went on TV this afternoon and announced that she had no confidence in her government to rule, there would be a general election as sure as night would follow day. Whoever won the next election *would* then remove the prerogative, so it's an interesting position. A gun with one bullet - the royals can bring down any one government of their choice, but it would bring them with it. I'd've thought you'd approve of a system like that?
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:10 am (UTC)Oddly, it seems to me if people are appointed for life they actually can display more principals than those who are constantly running to placate people for the next election. They can certainly be more honest for a start.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:13 am (UTC)I think if the Queen tried that it would cause huge outrage and we'd be a republic in all but name within a year without it having had any effect on an election or otherwise, indeed it would probably help whoever was being criticised.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:15 am (UTC)We'll have to agree to differ on how we perceive the reactions of the people to a use of the prerogative. There's no proof either way - I'd just point at my record of every political prediction I've made this decade on things like election outcomes and competancies having been subsequently proven correct :)
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:17 am (UTC)AV + is an interesting middle ground between FPTP and PR.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:17 am (UTC)I'm basing my assessment on people's reactions to as little as royal _comment_ on political and social issues in the past, which mostly seems to amount to 'Butt out Charlie, you're a tosser'.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:21 am (UTC)Longer terms, say ten years, but elections for half the house every five.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:21 am (UTC)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".
no subject
Date: 2009-05-27 11:21 am (UTC)