Thursday, June 10, 2004 AD
Taking the plunge
Today is election day for the London mayor, the European Parliament and the Greater London Assembly, "Super Thursday". A total of five votes to cast - London mayor first choice, London mayor second choice, GLA candidate, GLA party, MEP - under four separate systems of voting. And I still don't know for sure how I'm going to cast any of them.
This is the first time I've had the opportunity to vote since the 2001 General Election. At that time it was simple: as a Labour supporter for the whole of my adult life, I voted Lib Dem as a tactical vote to "keep the Tories out" (to no avail: the Conservative MP retained his seat by 269 votes). I rejoiced when the Conservatives were obliterated in the 1997 election; I danced on their graves in 2001. My only quarrel with New Labour was that it wasn't left-wing enough.
Since then I've experienced a, um, how can I put this, change in assumptions. For reasons I won't bore y'all with, I now find my political preferences lie as follows: smaller government; lower taxes; less regulation, especially of businesses; a moderate, but definite, Euroscepticism (including an implacable opposition to the euro and to the European Constitution); and an antipathy bordering on rage towards Labour's constitutional vandalism, their assaults on ancient freedoms (whether that be jury trials or hunting), and their policy of firehosing money at public services in a way which does nothing but increase the pro-Labour payroll vote stoke public sector inflation (now running at 7%, compared with 1% for the productive part of the economy). In short, I'm pretty estranged from the current government on virtually any issue you care to mention. Except Iraq, and even there I'm sick of the incompetence, manipulation and outright lies that have characterised Labour's approach to the war.
So obviously, the natural party for me now to vote for is, without question, the Con...
"Well, let's not jump to conclusions", as Sir Lancelot would put it. There are two main problems here:
1. Firstly, every fibre of my being revolts at the idea of voting Con... for that party. To put this into context for US readers, this is like a lifelong registered Democrat - one, moreover, whose only objection to Howard Dean would have been his excessive moderation and pandering to right-wing voters - deciding to vote for George W Bush. Whatever the policy considerations, there is an emotional reaction against this "betrayal" of one's earlier convictions. The Billy Bragg song, "Red to Blue", keeps coming to mind (though in my head I keep telling Billy, "Oh, don't be so bl**dy pious about it". He's got a point about the effects of fatherhood, though).
2. Given that voting Con... for, y'know, them... would incur the ridicule, dismay and outright contempt of many of my friends and relatives (one very old friend has recently discovered this blog, and I suspect won't be too ecstatic if/when he reads this post - hi, Dave!), I feel they're really going to have to make it worth my while. And so far they're failing to do so. They're still a bit of a shower, frankly (I found myself laughing out loud at a picture of the shadow cabinet yesterday, lined up like a student demonstration, waving placards - you've never seen anything like it, if I can find a copy online I'll post it. UK readers can find it on p.4 of today's Daily Telegraph).
Plus they aren't offering any sort of challenge to the Blair/Brown consensus - what we're offered is "second differential" politics, where their big pledge is that they won't increase public spending quite as quickly as Labour. Woo, that's inspiring. No attempt to challenge the assumption that the only virtuous form of spending is public spending, that the only answer to poor public services is to keep pouring more and more money into them while keeping control of that money firmly in the hands of the producers rather than the service-users.
But why should voting Con... for you-know-who... be so shameful? Partly it's the result of the 1992-97 government, when the Major government was a corrupt, immoral, incompetent shambles that thoroughly deserved what was coming to it. For anyone aged 25-35, say, it's virtually impossible to take them seriously after that.
And I think there is an element to which many people of my age and above vote Labour or Lib Dem as an "atoning sacrifice" - they use private health care, send their children into private education if "necessary", earn their living in ways that would be impossible without a free market economy, and so on. In short, every aspect of their lifestyle and worldview screams, "Conservative!" (There. I've said it. I feel better now). But by voting Labour or Lib Dem - or even, in extreme cases, by being the Labour Prime Minister! - they can salve their consciences. After all, they can't be all bad, can they? They still vote Labour. Their heart's still in the right place.
This was perfectly summed up in a letter to the Daily Telegraph a couple of years back, when Helen Fielding hotly denied the suggestion by one Conservative politician that Bridget Jones was a natural Tory. Another correspondent replied as follows:
Just kidding, Chris). And I'm not too thrilled by the "Christian People's Alliance" either (European-style "Christian Democracy"? Non merci). Not too many options left. Time to hold my nose and ignore the anguished screams of my 20-year old self... David, you've got eight hours to talk me out of this...
This is the first time I've had the opportunity to vote since the 2001 General Election. At that time it was simple: as a Labour supporter for the whole of my adult life, I voted Lib Dem as a tactical vote to "keep the Tories out" (to no avail: the Conservative MP retained his seat by 269 votes). I rejoiced when the Conservatives were obliterated in the 1997 election; I danced on their graves in 2001. My only quarrel with New Labour was that it wasn't left-wing enough.
Since then I've experienced a, um, how can I put this, change in assumptions. For reasons I won't bore y'all with, I now find my political preferences lie as follows: smaller government; lower taxes; less regulation, especially of businesses; a moderate, but definite, Euroscepticism (including an implacable opposition to the euro and to the European Constitution); and an antipathy bordering on rage towards Labour's constitutional vandalism, their assaults on ancient freedoms (whether that be jury trials or hunting), and their policy of firehosing money at public services in a way which does nothing but increase the pro-Labour payroll vote stoke public sector inflation (now running at 7%, compared with 1% for the productive part of the economy). In short, I'm pretty estranged from the current government on virtually any issue you care to mention. Except Iraq, and even there I'm sick of the incompetence, manipulation and outright lies that have characterised Labour's approach to the war.
So obviously, the natural party for me now to vote for is, without question, the Con...
"Well, let's not jump to conclusions", as Sir Lancelot would put it. There are two main problems here:
1. Firstly, every fibre of my being revolts at the idea of voting Con... for that party. To put this into context for US readers, this is like a lifelong registered Democrat - one, moreover, whose only objection to Howard Dean would have been his excessive moderation and pandering to right-wing voters - deciding to vote for George W Bush. Whatever the policy considerations, there is an emotional reaction against this "betrayal" of one's earlier convictions. The Billy Bragg song, "Red to Blue", keeps coming to mind (though in my head I keep telling Billy, "Oh, don't be so bl**dy pious about it". He's got a point about the effects of fatherhood, though).
2. Given that voting Con... for, y'know, them... would incur the ridicule, dismay and outright contempt of many of my friends and relatives (one very old friend has recently discovered this blog, and I suspect won't be too ecstatic if/when he reads this post - hi, Dave!), I feel they're really going to have to make it worth my while. And so far they're failing to do so. They're still a bit of a shower, frankly (I found myself laughing out loud at a picture of the shadow cabinet yesterday, lined up like a student demonstration, waving placards - you've never seen anything like it, if I can find a copy online I'll post it. UK readers can find it on p.4 of today's Daily Telegraph).
Plus they aren't offering any sort of challenge to the Blair/Brown consensus - what we're offered is "second differential" politics, where their big pledge is that they won't increase public spending quite as quickly as Labour. Woo, that's inspiring. No attempt to challenge the assumption that the only virtuous form of spending is public spending, that the only answer to poor public services is to keep pouring more and more money into them while keeping control of that money firmly in the hands of the producers rather than the service-users.
But why should voting Con... for you-know-who... be so shameful? Partly it's the result of the 1992-97 government, when the Major government was a corrupt, immoral, incompetent shambles that thoroughly deserved what was coming to it. For anyone aged 25-35, say, it's virtually impossible to take them seriously after that.
And I think there is an element to which many people of my age and above vote Labour or Lib Dem as an "atoning sacrifice" - they use private health care, send their children into private education if "necessary", earn their living in ways that would be impossible without a free market economy, and so on. In short, every aspect of their lifestyle and worldview screams, "Conservative!" (There. I've said it. I feel better now). But by voting Labour or Lib Dem - or even, in extreme cases, by being the Labour Prime Minister! - they can salve their consciences. After all, they can't be all bad, can they? They still vote Labour. Their heart's still in the right place.
This was perfectly summed up in a letter to the Daily Telegraph a couple of years back, when Helen Fielding hotly denied the suggestion by one Conservative politician that Bridget Jones was a natural Tory. Another correspondent replied as follows:
Left wing facade hides tory heartSo, how will I cast my vote? I cannot, will not, bring myself to vote Labour or Lib Dem, being now completely alienated from them. Nor am I going to vote for nutters like UKIP (Just for benefit of Chris W, let's run through those arguments for voting against UKIP just one more time:
Sir - Helen Fielding's protest that her creation, Bridget Jones, couldn't be a Tory (letter, Sept 19) was fascinating. Bridget Jones thinks that voting Tory is tied up with naff pastimes and naff behaviour, and is socially unacceptable. Not to vote Labour is to reject kindness to animals, gays and single mothers. In fact, her approach is the essence of two-faced New Labourism. Let's look into her future.
After what seems an age, Bridget Jones gets married. Soon - and the clock is fast ticking - children are on the agenda. Shortly after they are born (twins probably, thanks to private-sector IVF), she suddenly realises that the public medical and education systems are not up to much.
No matter. People like her can afford to go private, or at least throw money at the problem. If school fees are too much to face, financially or morally, Bridget Jones and her husband will move to a smart catchment area for a good school. It's called selection by mortgage (or by religion, in the case of the Prime Minister's family). She will then pull out all the stops to make sure her children have the best. Nothing will be left to chance in her attempts to push her offspring to the top of the tree.
Meanwhile, her husband will get his backside kicked if his career doesn't progress fast enough to ensure the financial backing needed for private tutoring, private healthcare and a big car for the school run. The less advantaged are trampled underfoot by Bridget Jones and her hyper-ambitious fellow parents - but, hey, she votes Labour.
After a decade in the capital, I've met Bridget and plenty like her. Under the blond wood New Labour veneer is a solid conservative core of the toughest teak.
They talk the big liberal game, but only about things that don't directly impact on their lives. When it comes to the private arena, New Labour and Bridget Jones are keener on conservative values than some Conservatives are. That's what David Willetts was talking about: conservatism as private and personal values, not as a tick in a box.
From:
Hilton Holloway (Shurely a made up name? - Ed.)
London SW2
Just kidding, Chris). And I'm not too thrilled by the "Christian People's Alliance" either (European-style "Christian Democracy"? Non merci). Not too many options left. Time to hold my nose and ignore the anguished screams of my 20-year old self... David, you've got eight hours to talk me out of this...
