Tomorrow we faces choices. Everyone gets the chance to have their say and express what direction they want this country to go. You can vote for whomever you want. That’s the point of free elections in this country.
The theory is that you should vote for the person in your constituency who you think most closely represents your views and who you think can best express those views in parliament. Ideally you would vote for a candidate who you think is best for your area even if they went against your overall politics for the country. You are choosing who you want to represent your views to the Palace Of Westminster. It’s easy isn’t it?
The problem is that the theory doesn’t really match up with reality. People end up voting for the leader of the party that they most identify with. OR they end up voting for someone because they detest the other. It’s worrisome and I keep trying to tell myself that I don’t care but, annoyingly, I do.
For many years I voted for the person I most wanted to represent my views. I had many arguments with Smith about tactical voting and that it was wrong and that we should vote properly. I mean, I once voted Not-Tory in the constituency of Westminster where the tory majority was about 20,000. To be fair, my vote didn’t matter at all but I did think that my views were counted. I don’t feel like that anymore.
The current first past the post system is flawed. All voting systems are flawed but some are less flawed. In some ways we had the referendum on voting systems and people elected to stick with the FPTP system. People are stupid.
I am now resigned to voting tactically even when I belong to a different political party. I’m voting to ensure the country has the best chance for proper social change, support for everyone, protecting the future and essentially being a humanist. I will admit there are some problems with the party leaders but one is much less worse than the other. To me, and my bloody empathy, the choice is clear.
Do what you want. Choose what you want. That’s the point.
I’m slowly getting used to the idea that most people don’t agree with me. I don’t think I’m wrong, I don’t think they are wrong, I’m just more right.
I expect to wake up Friday morning and be sad at what this country is.
I had a leaflet put through the door a few days ago. Normally these are put straight into the round filing cabinet because I already know who I am voting for but this one struck me as something to read.
This leaflet was like bait being dangled in front of me. So, let’s see what these “christian” people believe are christian values and how they want to treat people.
John Gibson wants to give christians a voice in parliament. Well, that’s interesting. They already have Bishops in the house of lords and the current Prime Minister [hopefully for not much longer] is a “committed” christian, the daughter of a vicar. The number of crusty MPs who will gladly go to church and say they are christian is more than those willing to stand up and say “what a load of bollocks”. There’s this idea that a person who believes in god is more righteous and true than someone who doesn’t. That idea is bollocks.
The Christian People’s Alliance has “true Christian values”. I’m not entirely sure what true christian values are. Much like there is no true Scotsman there are no true christians. This is similar to the how English do you have to be to be English. It’s a logical fallacy and you can’t define that particular thing at all.
If your rules come from the bible then what about all the shit rules that mean you can rape your slaves and beat your wife. What about ownership of women and people? You can’t cherry pick all the bits that fit your current view of life out of the bible. Oh, yes, you can and do. Let’s quote mine the little bits of the bible we want our church to follow.
If your argument is that we don’t pick the slaves bit of the bible anymore because we recognise it doesn’t work in our society then you have lost EVERY argument for any of your pathetic rules.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
If you then want to say that you only follow the new testament then again you are cherry picking and you are pathetic.
Marriage As God Intended
What they mean here is that marriage should be forever. Let’s keep all those unhappy people stuck with each other for all eternity. They also mean that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They don’t recognise same sex relationships. They don’t want people who love each other to be able to get married and promise their love to each other. They want to exclude forms of relationship that don’t meet their stupid beliefs [much like the current Prime Minister]. There are detailed policies to force unhappy couples to stay together. What if the husband beats the wife? What if the husband is a thief?
Why can’t people who love each other get married and those who decide they are happier apart leave each other?
All Life Matters
Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean we can make our own choices about our bodies. We are autonomous creatures. Women can choose when they want to have children and people should be allowed to die if that is what they want.
So they believe life begins at conception [why not fertilisation?] and then ends when you NATURALLY die. Does this mean we should accept all disease? Are doctors doing the bidding of god? Who decides when natural death is happening? Should we have defibrillators in public places? What about all the clusters of eggs flushed down the loo when something goes wrong after conception?
Care For The Poor
They don’t want anyone sleeping rough. That’s a good thing. But they won’t give a bed to those on drugs or drink. What the fuck. This is a classic. If you aren’t willing to help people who have alcohol or drug problems then how christian are you? There are probably very good reasons these people rely on drugs or alcohol. But no, fuck ’em. It’s their own fault and we won’t help people who can’t help themselves. How christian is that?
Support Persecuted Christians
It’s not just christians persecuted in Pakistan. Atheists are being murdered out there, and in Saudi Arabia, and in loads of other countries. Perhaps this party should promise to remove persecution entirely. But, no. That doesn’t support their narrative that christians are persecuted and should be protected. It doesn’t help their cause. Be nice to people as long as they are like us.
I tried to see the CPA website but it wouldn’t load.
John Gibson’s website loaded fine and it has a rainbow-like pattern on the homepage.
I’m having a problem coping with all the bullshit around with the current general election. It is annoying me. I am stuck between voting for the person and party that most represents my views and voting for the person most likely to get the tories out of government. I do not like the tories. I do not like their aims to enrich the rich at the expense of the poor. I do not like new Labour for the same reasons.
I do not agree with privatisation of the utilities, transport or the NHS. I do not agree with PPI and PFI for schools or anything. I do not agree with cutting investment into services.
But I do think that the well off should be made to pay for services they use. Those poorest in society should have services provided free of charge and the state has a duty to look after and help these people. Part of the agreement of living in this country [if you are an honest taxpayer] is that you accept that some of your money goes to help those less fortunate than you. People already accept progressive tax rates. Surely everyone would agree that it is fair and good and right to look after the worse off in this country?
So, we come to the problem I have. The conservatives are proposing to means test the winter fuel allowance for older people and also ask that people contribute to the costs of their care in old age down to a maximum amount of capital of £100,000.
Means testing the winter fuel allowance seems reasonable. The wealthy can afford to pay their bills anyway and so let’s have the money go to where it will do most good. Please note that I do not know what the tories are planning to do with the money they save. I would make sure it went on helping the less-well-off but the tories are scum and will probably use this to give tax breaks to very rich fuckers who do their best to “reduce their tax burden” or NOT PAY THEIR FUCKING FAIR SHARE. It still seems a reasonable thing to means test winter fuel payments.
So, here’s another thing that’s bothering me. The tories have said that they will use the sale of peoples houses once they die to cover the cost of caring for them, less £100,000. Now, arguments about privatisation fucking over the NHS and social care aside, I don’t really have a problem with this. If our starting premise is that those who can afford it, should pay and also help those who can’t then this is a sensible policy. What has everyone bothered is that they cling to the idea of their home being theirs, being what they worked for. The kids who’ll inherit all this money don’t want to give any up. Well, to the people who own the houses: YOU’LL BE DEAD. To the kids who are crying that they won’t receive all of mummy and daddy’s money: IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY. People should accept the price of living longer and paying for their care.
I do probably have a chip on my shoulder over privilege and rich (er) kids. I grew up on a council estate. Everything I don’t own is mostly down to my own fault. I get irate at the rich [and richer] not wanting to pay their way.
I could, of course, change my mind on this. I am going to chat to people over the next few days and see if they convince me that I am wrong. There’s a good chance they will just annoy me and I’ll think they are money grabbing bastards. If I adjust my thoughts on this then I will let you know.
Believe me, I am NEVER going to vote conservative. I pretty much hate everything they stand for and I think they have worked to fuck over in this country in my life time. I do find it interesting that I agree with them on SOME issues, even when most of the press seems against them.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.