Friday, April 30, 2010
How many captions?: that debate picture of the hopping and hopeful politicians
Hard to know who looks sillier: the politicians or the audience for thinking these 'Prime-ministerial candidates debates' have any real meaning.
For the millionth time people, we do NOT have a US presidential election system. We do not vote for parties as such but rather for the election of the local representative of a particular party. To be perfectly honest the LDs could come a close second to the winning party in terms of the popular vote but this won't translate into a proportional allocation of seats because that isn't how the UK General Election system currently works. Unfair? Quite probably, but all parties would have to agree to some significantly impacting changes to the electoral system to see a real change in the political dynamics created by the 'First past the post' system. Vested interests etc will make such a change very difficult to implement.
Is it about making a protest then? Is that what this current election is about, given that Labour have alienated many of their core voters over their recent years in office? Should we be voting for what we believe in rather than 'least worst' options or pragmatic selection based on how the votes will actually count? (and what we could end up with representing us at a local level)
I don't know. All I know is that I don't feel able in all truth to allow my vote to even indirectly elect a Conservative MP for our area. Councils are another matter because councillors work on a much more direct local representation basis (although our current Labour MP is very good at engaging with the local community in terms of informing constituents and dealing with their queries, large and small, national and local issues).
This picture is still ripe for captioning as Norm so rightly notes.