Voting is important. I was privileged to vote in the first general election in South Africa which the entire country was allowed to vote in. People queued for hours in the sun to vote. It was something quite special to behold.
In the recent election I voted (in order of importance to me)
- Mayor (1st Choice) - Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrats)
- Mayor (2nd Choice) - Steven Norris (Conservative)
- London Assembly Constituency Member - Elizabeth Howlett (Conservative)
- London Assembly London Wide Party - Labour
- European Parliamentary Candidate - Labour
I'm sure I'm probably a targeters nightmare.
Not being British I have less baggage when it comes to politics. Thatcher means not much more to me than Regan did. A face on the TV when I was a kid. Labour, Tories, Bob the Builder Party, they have no emotive meaning to me. It's not easier for me to vote, it's just that I have very little history to cloud my view.
I don't have as great a passion for politics as some friends, nor can I claim to be as widely read and truly informed as other friends of mine. Voting is important, and I have my own way of selecting who I vote for that may be different from how other people choose.
The most important vote for was Major. This has a direct and immediate impact on my life. The lest important vote (for me) was the European Parliamentary Candidate, as the immediate effect on my life will be less felt. It may even have less significance. Fortunately it also was the easiest vote.
I remember reading commentary on politics or Blair somewhere that said the problem was that no one was going to get elected with a campaign message of "We're going to try really hard, but in reality we can only change a bit at a time so bear with us". However that's the reality of things. It took longer to complete the building of my complex than a party has between general elections. 4 years is simply not enough time to actually do much, and with the continual pressure to get re-elected, you're stuck with conflicting agendas.
As a result, I value continuity over change. If I generally think you are doing a good job and you have the right general idea, I will vote for you to hold that continuity. If you're going in the wrong direction, the continuity works against you and I'll vote for anyone to make sure you don't stay.
So for the European elections I voted for Labour. I agree with their (and Blair's) general stance on Europe. I think Labour is doing a good job generally. Iraq was a screw up implementation wise, and the case put forward was suspect, but I never was entirely against disposing Saddam in principle. Anyway this vote wasn't about Iraq it was about do I think Labour will do a good job in Europe, and do I think Blair would.
Yes, and so I voted Labour.
This is the same reason I voted Labour for the London Assembly. They're doing a pretty good job, I'll let them have another bash.
And again this is the reason I voted for Elizabeth Howlett, the conservative for my London Assembly Constituency Member. Howelett (& The Conservatives) are already the Wandsworth London Assembly Constituency member. I think they are doing a pretty good job, and the area I live I think is doing well as a result. I'm happy to keep the continuity and so she gets my vote.
Now London Mayor is a different kettle of fish. I didn’t like any of the candidates for one reason or another. But that’s another long post, so I'll leave it for another day.
1. matthew
Well at least you voted.
Interestingly, here in Ireland, we had a citizenship referendum in addition to the local and european elections, and now (after an overwhelming yes vote), if you are born in Ireland you won’t be a citizen unless at least one of your parents are Irish citizens.
So less the ‘hundred thousand welcomes’ and more of a ‘sorry can I see your passport you dirty foreigner’.
I voted no. Not that it made any difference.
2. razorhead
I think it is important to try and make an intelligent and not an automatic choice when it comes to voting, so while I may or may not approve of some of your choices I definately approve of your approach.
3. Adrian
A bit like my engineering days eh … marks for method if not the result.
4. Francesca
What razorhead said :)
5. emchi
I think you needed a degree in rocket science to complete the European Ballot Paper. I almost voted for the Respect Party thinking it would be for Ali G, but thought better of it, although it did have me chuckling for days on end.
6. Adrian
You should have tried London where you had 4 more votes to throw into the mix too.
7. Green Fairy
Do you know, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who’s ever voted Tory for anything ever. I was beginning to think Tory voters were a Labour construct to keep people faithhful to the party, like the Brotherhood in 1984.
8. Morgan
As it happens, I voted completely differently to you, but I am glad that you voted and for a thought out reason. It puts you in a minority of a minority. I appreciate that you did not make a knee-jerk choice.
However, as a small question to your methodology (which, by the sounds of it, is open to the scientific approach of Mr Popper…) may I ask why ‘no change is good’?
Surely, if things are slow to change, then if the choice is between x and y, x is the incumbent, doing an acceptable job, and y is the alternative, with potential improvements, then the answer by your method is to change to y, as soon as possible.
Your approach is naturally conservative (little ‘c’) which does not allow a great chance for improvements of any kind. As it does not appear that we are sitting in elysian fields, then we must admit that there is room for improvement; and then the next question is how best to acheive that improvement, without losing anything that is important to us.
I would also question your reasoning that the European election has least effect on your life; I’d argue the opposite, but to coin your phrase, that post is for another day.
9. Adrian
Green Fairy, I don’t think I have ever voted for the winning party, so you better hope I vote Conservative :-)
I would like to point out that I do not support the Conservative party per say, just that on those particular votes I am of the opinion that Conservative candidate was a good choice.
Like I said, I want to see a targetter try profile me.
10. Adrian
Morgan, a very good question.
It’s not that no change is good, but that change for the sake of change has little value.
In the case of Bush, were I think that anyone else would be better, change is good. In the case of Ken Livingston, whom I have never like and never thought he did anything worth a damn, I think change is good.
However in the case of my local Wandsworth Candidate, where I think that she is doing a pretty good job, change just brings about someone else who does a pretty good job, but breaks the continuity. New projects get started, old projects get canned. Continuity proves more valuable than change. In this case change weakens the structure rather than builds it.
In my very humble opinion I think this applies to Labour (and yes Blair too).
In my view by holding continuity, you have more chance for change. It’s takes a long time to change things. If the people in charge are doing a pretty good job, then changing them means a whole new set of people has to get up to speed to be doing a pretty good job. If you change them by the time they gain velocity then nothing ever gets accomplished.
Change is good. So is continuity. It’s just picking the time you think one takes precedence over the other. Also if I am going to vote for change over continuity, then then someone damn sure better convince me to change.
Locally no one made a case to change the Conservative candidate who as already in charge.
European wise no one made a good enough case not to vote Labour.
Major wise the Lib Dem guy made a good case for me to change. But I have a post on that coming soon.
As for why I view the mayor having more effect on my life. As a foreigner living in London, for only six years, a mayor makes changes that effect me daily here and now. What goes on in Europe effects me, but far slower and over a far longer period of time. By the time I get to vote again this will probably not be as true, and I will get a chance to reevaluate.
11. Morgan
I somewhat agree with your emphasis on the value of seeing projects through and not allowing a stop-start policy to ruin any chance of change for the better. I tend towards the cynical; so change is generally preferable, but tempered by the pragamatic view that ‘better the devil you know’.
However, one thing that I’ve learnt (academically and in the real world) is that any political system has inherent in it a huge amount of intertia. Even if there is a huge will to change even the smallest thing, there is unlikely to be any change in a short space of time.
I think that this addresses both apparent issues; both how to vote, and which votes are important.
Because of this intertia, your worries of projects being stalled because of a change of leader are unlikely.
The government appears to me to be like a huge corporation. A change of board membership will not affect the projects taking place in the R&D or engineering division for months or years. This is why, when a new goverment takes power, they often issue some edict stating that ‘we’re going to carry on with old policy, with new emphasis, to see what happens’. (Remember New Labour admitting they would continue using Old Tory economic policy for the initial period of the 97 parliament?) They do this because, in short, they can’t change much, only spin it differently, barring exceptional circumstances, such as choosing to go to war…
As for what is important, the people in Europe are affecting you hugely… it just takes time for policy to trickle down from that high. You are closer to the mayoral decison making, and so the changes there are apparent more quickly (and a change of mayor may affect you more quickly (though I’d love to see Norris try to wholly reverse the congestion charge)). The changes, though swift, are smaller, and often due to policy chages further up; implementation of governmental or european policy.
As such, I’d say that to vote with the long term in mind is to vote sensibly. Reactionary voting for… lets say a TV personality, for sake of argument… is pointless, unless it also genuinely goes hand-in-hand with a long term change of voting strategy.
12. Adrian
Voting for a TV personality is pointless when the personality in question happens to be a racist jingoistic squirrel monkey called Robert Kilroy Silk.
13. matthew
All this talk of politics, however important or relevant, is boring the pants off me.
Is there no more oversized items of sporting equipment or similarly entertaining novelty items we can talk about?
Or football. Or rugby even!
Fin.
14. Morgan
Fuckweasel, surely? Or Wankbadger?
I don’t know how he can be racist with a jealous tan like that…
15. Adrian
I would rather vote for Jerry Springer.