Tactical Voting

Tactical voting is the miserable business of giving your vote to someone you don’t really like, but on the whole find less objectionable than someone you fear might otherwise win. If you’re feeling the pressure to vote tactically, it probably doesn’t leave you inspired about local politics or feeling too good about your democratic rights and powers. What is the point, when all you can do is pick between a mouldy apple and an off banana?

The idea of tactical voting upholds the notion that really anything other than the two main parties is a wasted vote. I was having this argument with my Gran twenty years ago, and little has changed. The two decaying fruit options have got so suspect that it’s hard to tell which unpleasant sludge is which, to take that metaphor just a little further. There are some differences between their policies and you might find one less repellent than the other, but most of their underlying concepts are the same.

Vote for the main parties and either way you’re voting for the same fundamental attitude to money. The same ideas about what money is and how it works. Ideas the Bank of England has questioned. Labour didn’t sort out the bankers when they had the chance, the Tories won’t either. Public ownership of the banks, and a fairer, more egalitarian attitude to money isn’t available in either shade. Go over every policy area and you’ll find that most of the time, the two main parties are taking about doing more or less of pretty much the same things.

If, on looking about you, your impression is that all is just fabulous and that more or less of the same thing is going to be fine, then I’m probably not going to persuade you. If, however, you’re a bit worried about the future, the carbon based economy, the cost of living, the state of democracy, unemployment, banking, quality of life, your children’s prospects... then that absence of radical thinking might just trouble you. Exactly how tactical is it to be voting for the party you find slightly less alarming than the other party? If you want real change, you’re going to have to vote for it.

If you’re not sure who might best represent your real views and preferences, have a look at this site, which can asses you based on how you respond to different policies, and might give you an idea of how to vote. Or if you happen to appreciate mouldy fruit, by all means, stay with what you know.

Cut and Thrust Politics

From the latest Stroud News and Journal, I see David Drew excuses being rude on the basis that it is simply part of the cut and thrust of modern politics. While I accept this is accurate, I question whether it’s right, and invite everyone (David included) to consider the social implications of ‘normal’ political behaviour.

It’s worth noting there aren’t anything like as many women in politics as men. This is in part because fewer women tend to come forward in the first place. Aggressive, macho politics where shouting down your opponent is preferred to collaborative or reasoned approaches, may be partly to blame here. This is certainly not a female-friendly culture. Either we have to raise women to be aggressive and assertive like men or we need a culture shift in politics. I’m for the latter, because this is not just about female engagement in political activity.

Domestic abuse and workplace bullying often depend on the basic assumption that it is ok to shout at people, to abuse them verbally, to humiliate, denigrate and shout down rather than showing respect or dealing with issues. Anyone who wishes to justify this behaviour need only look to modern politics for validation. It should further be noted that once you’ve established it is normal to verbally abuse, harass and humiliate, it is a good deal easier to both justify and get away with physical violence. People who have not been abused ask why victims stay. One reason is feeling that the behaviour is normal and deserved. Again, when politicians set such poor examples in terms of respect, it is little wonder women who are shouted at until they are nervous wrecks feel no right to defend themselves from that. Verbal bullying wrecks lives; I believe politicians have a moral duty to set a better example.

We complain about what lousy role models pop stars and footballers are for our young people. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that politicians should be making more effort to be good role models. If this is because we cannot imagine young people would take any interest in what politicians do, then we are failing them. We should be trying to engage the young in society and therefore in politics, or what you get is a lot of Russell Brands who loathe the system and don’t want to vote. What do we do, in politics, to inspire and motivate the young? What examples do politicians set, and what role models do politicians offer? Let’s consider the hypocrisy of a tax-payer funded second home, while the poorest people are facing a bedroom tax. Let’s consider the subsidised eating for well paid politicians, while the poorest are denigrated for turning to food banks. I rather expect Mr Drew to agree that the impact of such hypocrisy is to disengage our young people from politics. But what about the style? What about the issue of shouting people down rather than arguing points? I don’t think children are impressed when they hear playground style bullying from the leaders of the land. The thing is, that on a playground, that behaviour is actively discouraged by teachers.

 

Politicians need to listen as much as speak, probably more. We can’t listen to what people, who are supposed to be the heart of democracy, say, if we’re shouting. Fear of being ridiculed (as I was) and shouted down makes it harder to ask questions and offer opinions in the first place. Anyone feeling downtrodden won’t have the confidence to assert themselves in this modern political environment. We should not be excluding the emotionally delicate, the nervous, the fearful, the downtrodden from political debate by frightening them off before they have even tried to communicate. We have to be able to hear alternative perspectives to our own, and to treat with respect those human beings who think differently. We need to persuade people of the value of our arguments rather than ridiculing theirs. We need to bring people in, not depress them into going away.

Cut and thrust style politics sets up an atmosphere of conflict. Us and them. Win and lose. What happens in that scenario, is that actually, everyone loses, and democracy is undermined. Surely we can do better?

(Cartoon by Russ)

Local Politics

This is a transcript of a recent Twitter exchange between myself (@Nimue_B) and local Labour candidate David Drew (@DavidEDrew). I think it raises some important points and illustrates some critical issues about the very nature of modern political debate. As it’s difficult to follow conversations on Twitter sometimes, I am reproducing the whole thing. I have not sought David’s permission, but as he is a local political figure and the whole thing took place in that most visible public sphere – Twitter – I think this is ok. Other people have been participating in the conversation, but not in a way that has affected the overall direction, so for clarity I have not included those other voices. Anyone very keen to know can no doubt squeeze the whole exchange out of Twitter.

 

There was also some debate between David Drew and Molly Scott Cato before I became involved, again, for clarity I’m starting at the point where I came in on the 13^th October. I do not believe that distorts anything. Typos all included, extra @s left out for ease of reading.

David Drew: Much more point than Greens which has no roots in working class politics!

 

Nimue: My Gran was a Labour councillor. I'm Green cos I see more social justice from Greens than Labour.

David Drew: Deluded then!

Nimue: show me the policies and evidence to prove otherwise, David.

Nimue: I also like the respectful behaviour of Greens, good manners are worth a lot. Respect, at all?

Nimue (18^th Oct) : Still waiting to hear about social justice policies from @DavidEDrew what should I be reading, David? What should I know?

David Drew: Read RH Tawney and then you're get it!

Nimue: just to confirm you mean the chap who died in 1962? Was hoping for contemporary policy statements.

Nimue: Looing at The Acquisitive Society by R. H. Tawney online, cannot square it to modern Labour policy

David Drew: Since when are we not supposed to draw on important historical individuals; oh forgot Greens have no history which is their problem

Nimue: please talk to me about how Tawney's thinking manifests in modern labour policy, am interested.

Nimue: Surely we all draw on the same radical roots. We all choose our roots. Would they have chosen us? I cannot say. I'm with Ruskin.

David Drew: Christian socialism very strong in Labour whereas Greens don't want either Christians or socialists.

Nimue: actually I think we have an abundance of both.

Nimue: A strong Quaker presence, locally, and they have a long history of socialism, political radicalism etc. An inspiring tradition.

David Drew: Golly even the Tory trolls are having a go now! Clearly haven't got anything better to do.

 

Nimue: If Labour had social justice policies I could respect & David Drew directed me to them, I would thank him & recognise their value.

(This last one was not directed to him, the odds are that he did not see it.)

 

Here we are on the 21st October, and I still do not know what David Drew thinks there is by way of modern social justice policy from the Labour Party that explains why I would be ‘deluded’ to consider the Greens more of  social justice party. He did not apologise for being rude to me, and did not substantiate any of his claims. This is not, in my opinion, how politics ought to work, but he’s following the lead of Westminster, and actually I think we should be challenging that with better manners and more emphasis on facts rather than noise.

More to follow in future blogs about the history of Green thinking…