AV then

Bloody bread and circuses.

Just a couple of highlights then for those that missed the shenanigans. First there was the No campaign...

Then there was the Yes campaign...



Finally there was grim reality...

Millions of mainly working-class electors have boycotted the electoral system since 2001. The Labour leadership knows that most of those are abstaining ex-Labour supporters. The reasons for this are obvious – their interests are not being effectively represented.

But AV doesn't promise to empower them. And it actually replicates one of the undemocratic aspects of FPTP. Ralph Miliband's criticism of FPTP was that it was used by party leaders to discipline rank and file members and force them to accept centrist policies, in order to win support from "marginal" constituencies. Under AV, the parties would be doing much the same thing in order to gain the "second preference" votes of their larger competitors.

I was going to vote no. But then I saw how pathetically the yes campaign was going to be beaten and I began to pity them. And since it's still effectively rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, I thought about voting yes after all.

Then I saw the Stephen Fry video, and went against it all over again. Politicians are going to start 'working in the national interest'? Stephen sweetie, there's no such animal. And the last thing we need is more collaborationist corporate centrists telling us that because they all agree it must be best for everyone. We're All In It Together could become our national fucking motto at this rate, which would be quite something, since it would be even more dishonest than the current 'My God and my right'.

Labour's Last Minute Election Push

Hmm. They're right - Labour hasn't been perfect. I choose to interpret this admission as a sign of strength. You know, similar to this.

But wait, there's something else on the mat. What's this?

Click to enlargerate.

Hmm, good points. As Chief Whip, Nick has had a lot of influence over which bills get through, so maybe I should give this seasoned statesman a chance after all.

Oh.

Obligatory 'How Do I Vote' Handwringing Wangstfest

So, now the three suits have spoken, and a nation has shrugged, what have we learned? Three things really:

1) Whatever Nick Robinson says, this was about personalities and not policy. Because (a) there were very few substantial policy differences to discuss, and (b) this was a political beauty pageant, in which 3 men in suits were put up for 61 million people to gawk at, and then be asked what they thought about them (there was even a scrolling tickertape recording a live Ipsus Mori reaction to it, like the world's dullest lie detector test).

2) All three parties (a) hate public servants, and (b) hate them furrins.

3) The stare-eyed bloke who was sitting behind the BBC presenters discussing the real-time polling, looking like he's touching cloth, is probably already a YouTube hero.

Leaving us where exactly? I'm one of those who normally grits my teeth and votes Labour for fear of the other lot, but the MP in my constituency is such a massive cock that if I try to put the cross in the Labour box this time my own arm might rebel against me and punch me in the face for my presumption. Which leaves a choice of two, since TUSC aren't standing here.

CHOICE A: The Greens.
Not perfect but the best of a bad bunch by a long way, in that they have some policies I actively like, rather than am simply prepared to tolerate. Investment in public transport and raising taxation on the wealthy whilst lowering it for the poorest, for example, or abolishing PFI and decreasing class sizes. I'm prepared to ignore some equivocation in the preamble on immigration as the named policies are largely positive if limited, and a fluffily worded manifesto (cf Sarah Lucas' 'New Labour has its back to the wall in the far corner of the last chance saloon'). So inasmuch as anyone since RESPECT can meet this description, they're the ones I'd 'like' to vote for.

CHOICE B: Lib Dems.
Despite having only one policy that I actually like (and the Greens have that one too) - abolishing the ID card scheme - they're still not as bad as the other two in most respects. Their manifesto is quite annoying, lots of giving figures without references to projected receipts and borrowing, pointless pictures littering the document like a desperate financial pages editor, that sort of thing. Plus their policy on Royal Mail is clearly designed to privatise it, which is very shitty.

But here's the familiar old problem, the one faced by every voter with some kind of idea about the way they would like the world to be. Do you vote for the least of all evils or the least worst of the ones who might actually win?

Mark Steel summed this up neatly when commenting on Blair years ago:
'I know that there are those in the Party who still cling to the old-fashioned belief that we should at least aim to do something. Well let me say this: if you persist with this outdated rhetoric, you will lose us the election and we will never be given the opportunity to do nothing!'

If the Lib Dems do well, they won't do very much, but they might not be as bad as the other two will be.

On the other hand, there would be real change if there were a significant Green victory across the country (although there won't be). But, having been involved in fringe politics for a few years now, I know how important it is for the smaller parties for every increase in vote, because it helps when you're building your movement both to know that the support is there and to be able to show to those outside your base that the support is tangibly there.

In short, Meh.

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to vote with your conscience and suffer a BNP MEP, or to take the compromise choice and by opposing end them?

There's a lot of worry about the BNP getting seats at the Euro elections next month. Here in the North East there's 3 seats up for grabs, and it has been suggested that, with the BNP getting 5th place 5 years ago, they could get a seat this time round (although not everyone takes this too seriously and if you look at the actual difference in percentages between 3rd and 4th place it's still fairly unlikely).

Still, what better time to ponder the options open to the discerning voter?

There's the usuals of course, Con, Lab, Lib - I suppose I'd consider voting for Clegg's men if I had to, but let's see if we can't do a little better.

Hmm. Bit of a mixed bag, as it happens.
BNP, Greens, UKIP, No2EU, Jury Team, English Democrats, Socialist Labour, some random god-botherers, and Libertas. So a total of 12 parties, 3 of whom I'd never even heard of. How do we narrow it down? Well, first off let's find out who the 3 randoms are.

Jury Team. Who they?
Esther Rantzen's backing this lot apparently, so already things aren't looking good for Jury Team.
Then there's the name - sounds like a really shit mid-afternoon crime-solving drama involving 12 people with minor superpowers, like the ability to induce migraines or grow aubergines quicker than you might expect. GO, JURY TEAM! GO!
What do they stand for? According to their website they stand for assonance, and plenty of it:

'Politics for the People Politics without Parties Politics with Principles'

is their battle cry.
What does this mean? Well, their actual demands seem fairly reasonable, if limited. More accountability and an end to whips, that sort of thing. But if they mean 'politics without parties' in any kind of literal sense then you can count me out until after the revolution. Anarchism is fine, but let's make sure we've got some kind of equality and production on the basis of need in place first, eh? 'Cos, you know, if there're no parties then there are no united blocs to push for change and everything loses focus.

Christian Party - Christian People's Alliance. Who they?
Self-explanatory really. No. Next!

Libertas. Who they?
They're the 'fresh and exciting new political force sweeping across Europe' apparently. So the party equivalent of a Glade plug-in, then.
Pro and pan-European apparently, which to me sounds like an SNCF breakfast croissant, but what do they stand for? Well, it's 'democracy, accountability and transparency' - much like Jury Team. But they've got a lot more ambition than that: in this set of elections they want to create a brand new bloc, from scratch (they're a brand new outfit). This bloc is pushing for things like an elected commission, which is fine as far as it goes. But for me it's not enough to democratise the institutions, the point is to change them. This all sounds very laudable, but it's not going to devolve power to workers' soviets any time soon or bring action on climate change to the top of the agenda. It's all a bit meh.

So, that's the new ones, who's left?
Well we've got the fascists, so they're out. UKIP, ditto. English Democrats - oddball far-right English Nationalists, they can sod off.

SLP is Scargill, so it's got the nostalgia vote sewn up. Plus their policies seem pretty good - nationalisation, socialism, democracy, the environment. That all sounds like the sort of thing you can get behind. Pity their website's so bloody awful though. Come on guys, we've moved on since the miner's strike, you're not on Teletext now!

Greens are also pretty nice looking though. Fairly left-wing, Caroline Lucas seems decent enough (if you've not heard her on Mark Thomas' podcast, do check it out, there's a dear), and of course this whole saving mankind agenda is hard to disagree with. And their website's nifty. And of course, they're polling pretty well, so could potentially outstrip the BNP this time round.

Bugger, it's going to be them isn't it? I'd better go and get me some sandals and muesli.

Update: Heh, completely forgot to do No2EU. I've been out of the activist loop for some time now, as the course I've been doing has taken up virtually every waking moment, and I've not had much time for news (hence all these posts about books and films, really), so I missed out on No2EU. Still, it's backed by the right people, like the RMT and Tony Benn, its focus is all those things Benn was talking about years and years ago, and which Greg Palast has touched on. They do make a persuasive case, especially on the prospect of enforced 'competitiveness'. I don't know though - the last poll I saw didn't really place them anywhere, and the Greens look to be well placed at the mo. But then... they do make a good video, don't they?

How Euro Elections Work

Found this via Bristling Badger:



It's rather good isn't it? Luckily my region's not so heavily being targeted by the BNP scum, but they're still a presence. I'm still not sure which way to vote, but that's probably for another post.

World Ends

Today, around the world, were heard the cries of anguish as democracy was quite literally snuffed out of existence.*

Chavez becomes 'President Unstoppable' after Venezuela votes to scrap term limits

Cried the Daily Fail, as they pointed out to a foolish electorate that

President Chavez, who has said he must stay in office beyond the end of his second term in 2012 to secure Venezuela's 'socialist revolution', pledged to remain in power for another decade.

Opponents accepted defeat - but gave a warning that Chavez was becoming a dictator.

The Torygraph meanwhile was disappointingly sober in its reportage, merely noting that

He is blamed by a vocal opposition for rising crime, corruption and inflation and will now have to tackle the effects of the global downturn on Venezuela's oil-based economy.**

Intriguingly, the Scum has obviously been so upset by this expunging of the will of the people that it has failed to cover it at all.

Luckily, it's sister paper has spotted the true problem with this seemingly innocent 'referendum':

Changes to Venezuela constitution could keep Hugo Chavez in power for years***

Admittedly, this is an article from January, but beggars can't be choosers (why is News International's coverage on this so poor I wonder? Probably not a big enough organisation to report on something happening far away. Something like that, I'll be bound).

Obviously the main gag here is the British press presuming to criticise another country for deciding to allow their head of state to stand for a third term, i.e. to be elected by the will of the people and all that democratic stuff.****

--------------------------------------------------------------

*Actually, although I plan to take some amusement from the right-wing's annoyance at Chavez's referendum victory, what's remarkable is how toned down a lot of the coverage has been, as compared to this sort of nonsense from The Economist back in 2007：

WHEN Simón Bolívar, South America's Venezuelan-born independence hero, wrote a constitution for the brand new country of Bolivia, it featured a lifetime president. So it should come as no surprise that Hugo Chávez, who claims to be a latter-day Bolívar, is proposing to let himself be re-elected indefinitely to his country's presidency.

Update: Atheo News has pointed out this utterly sane Indie editorial:

Leading article: A perilous new twist in the Venezuelan revolution

Two terms of office ought to be enough, even for Hugo Chavez

**The obvious hilarity that comes from likening the Venezuelan situation to a dictatorship has a slight edge over this gag. It relies on you knowing something about the Christian Democratic party and the corruption in Venezuela prior to Chavez's government. Like attempted coup (with US support) against Chavez a while back, and the huge kickback mechanism that is the state oil company.

***The Times does take the referendum as a jumping off point to do this though:

World Agenda: Hugo Chavez can no longer rely on petrodollars to buy support

He has always bought support through oil revenues and anti-US populism. The Venezuelan leader faces a harsh new world

I always find it amusing that this is the way the right thinks: if desperately poor people are given bricks to build their houses, milk subsidies for their children and schooling and medical aid for the first time in their lives, this is the dastardly Chavez 'buying support'. It never seems to occur to them that this is a good thing for any government to be doing. Greg Palast reports a similar attitude from Venezuela's own ruling elite, with an upper-class chica complaining that:

"Chavez gives them (the poor) bricks and bread!" - how dare he! - so, they vote for him.

****I don't want it to be thought that I'm some kind of utopian about Venezuela. I'm not - I'm fully aware of the problems in the country and with the 'Bolivarian revolution'. Having said that, Chavez is a damn sight more progressive than his opponents and the period of his government has seen real improvements in the majority of people's lives.