DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

Voting for any party involves taking a leap and accepting that they'll disappoint you in some ways but it's worth supporting them because you share broad values. And that doesn't mean voting Labour if that sticks in your craw - there are other options.

a) all of the major UK parties have more broad values in common with each other than they have in common with any voter who doesn't believe in the current economic and political status quo. none of said parties are committed to or apparently interested in making any meaningful changes to the status quo.

b) there are no other options in the majority of constituencies during a general election.

defending the existing political system is to make a claim that it is plausibly going to deliver changes needed to make the UK less destructive of human and environmental resources. fine if that's what you believe. please stop patronisingly pretending it's the only game in town.

on the other hand, ignore me because i've decided i'm not going to argue the toss with defenders of the political status quo any more, it makes me either more radge or more depressed than i wanna be.

I'm as cynical as anyone but why not vote Green? Given executive power they would end up as bad as anyone but until that point the more representation they have, the more they can influence the political dialogue in (imo) a good way.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/11/police-selling-grant-shapps-software-may-have-been-fraud/

I was considering spoiling my ballot at the last election, but when I got to the polling station I was too embarrassed and just voted for the Labour candidate.

I'd be worried about spoiling it in the 'wrong' way, I think. I remember this older trot guy I knew when I was at university telling me how he'd written 'FOUR BOSSES' LACKEYS' on his ballot, but I'd feel too awkward to do that, I'd be worried that my self-consciousness would somehow show through in the way that I wrote it, and would be obvious to whoever counted the ballot.

lol well at least older trot guy had satisfaction of backing the winner

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24850921

On Newsnight last month, presenter Jeremy Paxman berated comedian Russell Brand, who has urged revolution and non-participation in elections, for not bothering to vote.

But Paxman later admitted he did not vote in a recent election "because I thought the choice so unappetising".

Green's policies are relatively sound, but they're, uh, they're the Green Party. They seriously need an image overhaul, possibly a name change, if they ever want to get a majority on their side.

This whole 'Brand owned Paxman on Newsnight' thing bothers me a bit. Why does everything have to be about slamming people down all the time? I figured Paxo was pretty much in agreeing with Brand on a number of points, but it's his job to challenge his interviewees and ask them tough questions.

to what do you relate Pingu Unchained

Uh, what? In general?

Why does everything have to be about slamming people down all the time?

They seriously need an image overhaul, possibly a name change, if they ever want to get a majority on their side.

aren't you arguing against yourself a bit here?

i say this not in a snippy way but as illustration of how easy unconscious doublethink is re: the democratic process

when your party is too niche and indie for even ilx to get on board you got problems

Hi NV, not sure how these two things relate? One's about how people perceived the Brand vs Paxo debate, i.e as an argument rather than a discussion. the other's about the Green Party as a brand and how they're generally perceived as the hippie tree-hugging party despite having a much wider and more sound remit than simply concentrating on environmental issues. I just think they could do with a look at themselves if they're going to be the major alternative for mainstream left wing voters.

you're talking about perceptions and not politics?

no doubt people campaigning in elections need to get their policies and messages out as clearly as possible to largest possible number of people. when you step into the realm of "branding" and "image" then you're entering the kind of apolitical popularity contest that lies at the heart of the dissatisfaction with the existing system that Brand (amongst lots of others, i'd prefer to keep him out of it as a celebrity voice) is articulating

no political party's "problem" is that their image isn't right - that just leads to trying to win a game you shouldn't be playing in the first place. tbh when the Green Party adopted a formal leader in this country it felt like a bullshit concession to ad agency politics to me

I don't think the notion that the greens are perceived as hippie tree-huggers is particularly accurate, actually. I think they are condescended-to and largely ignored by mass media, but equally they are pretty dreadful at communicating their message. This is possibly partly down to having no money - even the BNP and something I've never heard of called the Christian Party received more in donations at the last election, so having even the very modest success they've had is quite an achievement.

The British public are, I believe, largely sympathetic to environmental issues in a kind of airy theoretical way. There's a reason Cameron draped himself in green policies before the last election. The problem arises when you ask people to make concrete changes to their way of life. But what I'm getting at is that I really don't think branding is the issue.

tbh when the Green Party adopted a formal leader in this country it felt like a bullshit concession to ad agency politics to me

but it also arguably resulted in raising caroline lucas's profile to a level where she was able to get elected to parliament, and i think that as such she's doing an amazing job. and then once she got elected, she gave up the leadership and now a second person might get the same boost in an election. a smart move campaignwise but also somewhat of a rejection of the leadership concept?

ha i wasn't totally aware of that Nick. that's quite savvy, maybe?

there's a whole area here about playing the game, entryism, using the tools at your disposal, the ends justifying the means, etc

i guess to be fully honest i shd confess that i have very little (okay, no) faith in the capacity of the parliamentary system to make the changes i think the world needs, and that i think it is better to be honest in political campaigning than to use the kind of semi-honesty involved in PR, marketing etc even for "noble" ends, and that, like Matt, i strongly doubt that a party that was honest about the kind of socioeconomic changes that the world needs will be able to win anything like an influential base within a coalition government, never mind a workable majority

and also that parties should be based on the political convictions of their members and do their utmost to win other people to their cause, not focus group themselves into enough votes to be in gov at any cost

Been writing this between calls all morning so sorry if it reads a bit wonky, but...

Branding is a loaded term I guess. I think Matt's a bit closer to what I'm getting at. Even though I advocate ballot-spoiling over not voting at all, ideally I'd prefer to believe in and vote for something if that something seemed like a viable option. Looking at the Green Party's policies, they're the closest that fall in line with my own beliefs. I'm sure a lot of other people I know - including those who don't vote, either through apathy, disillusionment or disinterest - could be tempted to vote Green if they checked out their policies. But I know why they don't, and it's largely down to perception. Either they see the Greens as a one-issue party (which they're not), or that they exude a kind of specialist agenda associated with free-spiritism/activism/airiness that doesn't gel with everyone's outlook.

The Green Party kind of remind me of my local gig venue. It's run by a really nice old chap, an ex-Pink Floyd roadie, who cares about his community and the local music scene more than anything else in the world and yet can't seem to figure out why fewer and fewer people are coming to his club, but the answer's glaringly obvious - it's a hippie dive. Well over ten years ago he decked it out in brightly-painted motifs, pictures of dancing figures, ravey day-glo tribal patterns etc. It was a bit old fashioned even then, even if it did fit in with the character of the place and some of the people who went there (Dreadzone and Zion Train still make regular appearances). But shit, if it looked old-fashioned then, it's positively anachronistic now. The town is booming with young people, many of whom are interested in live music and forming bands and yet the club's having serious trouble bringing in these new audiences. The owner puts it down to the smoking ban, the popularity of the X-Factor, the recession, people being more interested in pubs and clubs than live music, people not being interested in their scene any more, a lack of quality bands etc - all of which I'm sure are contributing factors to a lack of door sales; but ask anyone under 25 why they don't visit the place and they'll tell you it's because it's a hole. They're embarrassed to go there. The fluorescent paint is peeling off the walls, the floor's covered in gum, and it simply doesn't factor into the mindset and aesthetic of someone born after 1990. The problem is no one's got the heart to tell the owner this, because it's his club and he's put his heart and soul into it (and besides, he hasn't got the money to redecorate anyway so pointing out this elephant in the room would be pointless).

Anyway, forgive the extended analogy, but since the guy used to be a Green rep in our area, I've always seen them as having similar image problems - heart's in the right place, but more has to be done, somehow, to get people from outside the immediate circle to support them. It's not about selling out their values, but it is about trying to appeal to more people by saying 'hey, you don't like the way things are; you're against the major parties and their policies and fibs; these are our policies - you agree with a lot of them, so why not vote for them?. We're not just about fracking and recycling and wearing camo; and we represent a SERIOUS alternative to the status quo, not a fringe party or a protest vote or a waste of time'.

problem with your analogy is that the green party got their highest ever share of the vote at the last election and got an mp for the first time. they're on the up afaict

That's really good to hear, I'm pleased and I hope it continues. I still think more people would be up for getting on board with the Greens if they heard about their policies and saw them in a slightly different light. You could blame apathy on behalf of voters, but not everyone thinks to take it on themselves to check out every party's policies before they decide whether or not to vote. I still think a lot of people are put off voting Green for personal or aesthetic rather than rational reasons.

Think the Greens probably lose out more to the age-old "they'll never win, it's a wasted vote" problem then they do to being viewed as hippie skanks.

yeah that too, but it hasn't hurt UKIP.

Yeah but UKIP voters are predominantly fuckwits not renowned for their pragmatism. Also they've been very good at presenting themselves as a party with momentum in their favour.

UKIP don't have an MP tbf

which i think is quite telling about how much their potential core support really cares

I still think a lot of people are put off voting Green for personal or aesthetic rather than rational reasons.

i think you might be right but my response tends to be "fuck all y'all then" which i admit probably isn't helpful

There's also the question of the extent to which the Greens will benefit from the collapse of the LibDem protest vote.

if that means that all their newsletters have a "Labour/Conservatives Can't Win Here" image at the top then please god no

meant to post about that Lib Dem meme before, says it all really, party of principle and conviction eh?

For all their momentum etc, UKIP have never come close to getting a seat in a general election. They do well in the European elections because British people hate Europe.

xposts to NV hehe, it's righteous but no it's not helpful. especially considering the number of people i talk to online and IRL who hold beliefs and opinions and have standards about their way of life but do not vote because they're scared off by the very idea of politics. when voting time comes, i'm always surprised at how many people say 'well i'm not voting because i don't feel i know enough about politics to vote', and i have to say to them that while they stay at home, there are dozens of right-wing arseholes voting for the BNP and UKIP.

I truly believe that the realm of politics needs to be made accessible to everyone in order for elections to work and for democracy to represent an overall picture of the country rather than the vested interests of an active elite of richer, older voters. It's why, despite certain flaws, I'm very pleased Russel Brand's been putting his oar in because at least he's drawing attention to the subject and bringing them to a wider audience.

I dunno, the LibDems have always been this weird collection of wet Tories, classical Liberals and social democrats who were queasy about Labour's authoritarian instincts, and that did bear out in the opportunism of their campaigning (plus the constant tension between economic and social liberalism) but we shouldn't be in any doubt by now which side has won.

Every party has these faultlines to some extent but it's more pronounced in the LibDems than pretty much any other party, although Labour come close.

The alienated right are consistently better at committing to a minority party, whether it's the BNP or UKIP, and therefore getting attention than the alienated left, whose disillusionment tends to translate into not voting at all and therefore, under the current system, rendering themselves invisible. Occupy was a great attempt to have an impact outside the electoral system though. It stands to reason that a party of the far left or right probably won't get any MPs except in unusual constituencies but they can change the political conversation and nudge the mainstream parties.

it is about trying to appeal to more people by saying 'hey, you don't like the way things are; you're against the major parties and their policies and fibs; these are our policies - you agree with a lot of them, so why not vote for them?. We're not just about fracking and recycling and wearing camo; and we represent a SERIOUS alternative to the status quo, not a fringe party or a protest vote or a waste of time'.

^^^^ 100%. The Green party's lack of engagement with the political process is enraging, given their mostly agreeable policies. I'm not asking for Saatchi & Saatchi, but an acknowledgement that they're a political party and not a pressure group would be helpful. It was the professional campaigning and the move away from the dreadlocks-and-drum-circles image that won the seat at the last electon. (At least that's my understanding - is that right, Brighton posters?)

The alienated right, whether American or British, have no problem getting attention because of their contrariness/racism/authoritarian love for staying on-message with a few simple ideas.

I would suggest that the right's willingness to turn disallusion into votes, and the left's reluctance to do the same, is a negative rather than a positive. It may or may not be tru that the current system cannot bring meaningful change (I believe it can, given it has in the past) but until a left-leaning party gives it a proper go in the 21c we'll never find out.

The alienated right have no problem voting because every major party in this country espouses views they're mostly comfortable with

It may or may not be tru that the current system cannot bring meaningful change (I believe it can, given it has in the past)

i think the Labour government of 1945 has to be viewed as an historical anomaly brought about by a set of circumstances which will never cohere again. that's before i even think about whether said government did anything to arrest or ameliorate the advancement of capitalism and its ongoing destruction of human potential

i know i get apocalyptic when it's better to be pragmatic but i think a lot of "pragmatists" shd take a long hard think about how little improvement in the way our society works has been bought at the expense of how much continued diversion of the world's natural and human resources into the hands of a very privileged micro-minority, and look at the direction the gap continues to move in, and wonder whether they aren't being just a tiny bit played

I like the idea of ballot spoiling rather than not turning up at the polling station at all, but I think that any movement that promotes it should not just say 'spoil your paper' so that people simply write obscenities or scribble over the paper randomly. Rather, the movement should encourage people to write the message NONE OF THE ABOVE, neatly and simply. That way, the participants are making clear that they do want to participate in the political process, it is simply that they do not believe that any of the candidates will act in their interests.

If the movement became successful, just in one constituency...hell, even one ward in a local election, and the number of NONE OF THE ABOVE papers exceeded the number of votes for the most successful candidate then that would make people sit up and take notice. And I don't think the 'winning' candidate could be said to have a mandate.

^^^ this, basically

They'd only sit up and take notice if it looked likely that those who spoiled their papers could be organised into voting consistently. If it just looked like inchoate dissatisfaction then widespread spoiling would offer no meaningful threat, or even nudge.

it's not so much a threat i think as at least not handing the stick to the cunt that's beating you

I guess ultimately I don't believe that either (a) the major parties in the UK are functionally identical or (b) a mass campaign of spoiling would lead to fundamental system change.

You know, I was all ready to go with the Greens in the next election. Then I read this. And that was the end of that.

(I also don't get too het up about the sanctity of my vote legitimising people I don't believe in wholeheartedly, if one is slightly better than the other then that's worth my little x in the little box, I reckon.)

Unfortunately nobody sits and logs the reasons the ballot is spoiled. There's no practical difference between a paper with "none of the above" and one where you have voted for two candidates, afaik.