Do political parties 'create' friends to influence people? Don't waste your vote!

Suffragettes demonstrating in London* early 20thC

My friends at Hope not Hate yesterday published a link to a story in a local newspaper commenting on the fact that the UKIP campaign for their General Election candidate in the Castle Point [Essex] constituency has apparently been paying local businesses to display UKIP posters, placards and banners. And to make this story even more humorous, UKIP representatives are apparently trying to get away with the least possible amount of payment as small business owners are depressed to find that their neighbours may have been paid more [see article]

Well, in over 50 years political campaigning I have to say I have never heard anything like this! OK, political parties pay to advertise on advertising hoardings and other public advertising spaces like buses etc but not like this. I will be displaying a placard for the Labour candidate in my constituency as always. But - as they say - free, gratis and for nothing other than the belief that he is the best candidate. UKIP are apparently pouring money into the election campaign, flooding householders with multiple letters and leaflets in the Castle Point area in the belief that they can in this way induce more support.  Someone should explain to them that this is not the way that *real* politicians act. And also to make friends and influence people, UKIP 'bargaining' over what price they will pay to get posters etc displayed is really very funny! All rather desperate really.

Meanwhile, several newspapers and other media outlets have published a letter signed by 5,000 business people  supporting the Conservative party. As can be seen in this clip it is however a Conservative party 'production' which it asked these 5,000 'supporters' to sign. Some are not even business people. Again all rather desperate really.

Believe it or not, I got so bored with these shenanigans that in the writing of this I nearly deleted it all. Where are the good old days of good old political debate when candidates argued vigorously but relatively politely? When party representatives appeared on our TV screens to be interviewed and actually knew the answers to the questions they were asked? [Unlike the poor chap in the clip above. I almost felt sorry for him. Andrew Neil had such an easy job in that interview he must have hankered for the good old days when it was much harder and therefore far more satisfying to make a politician squirm]

Roll on May 8th when all this posturing will be over for another 5 years. Oh unless the law is changed again when no-one is looking and the 'fixed term' for the life of a parliament is changed again. Supposing this was to happen every year! Or the politicians decide to hand it all over to the civil servants and the country be ruled by referendum?

And now for the [possibly] boring bit. I say this at every election, but it is important. Next week on May 7th everyone registered to vote will have the opportunity to select their preferred candidate. Please don't waste this glorious privilege. Many of our ancestors, especially women, died to get the vote for all of us.



*Photo courtesy of http://secretsofabeautyaddict.co.uk/articles_and_interviews/articles/100th-anniversary-emily-davison/

The new 'old lie'

Along with many other TV viewers, I watched BBC Question Time last Thursday 

[7th December] It's still available on iplayer if, dear reader, you would like to

check it out.

I usually watch #bbcqt. Sometimes I join in the 'discussion' by tweeting along 

with it on hashtag #bbcqt. [See, I am down with the kids when it comes to 

techie talk. Although I am having trouble formatting this blog today and on a 

tight time schedule so bear with me and I hope you can read this in reasonable 

comfort. And the colours maybe, well, interesting] 

Russell Brand and Nigel Farage were billed amongst the panelists. Interesting, I 

thought. And it was. Brand seemed to be trying to hold himself back and not 

live up to his firework image. Farage seemed not to have the same 

principles and - imo - was his usual patronising, truth-bending, mis-leading self.

However a couple of times his hail fellow well met act slipped and then the fire

in his eyes flashed and maybe his true self showed.

Yesterday there was, expectedly, quite a bit of discussion in the media about 

which of the two 'won' the debate. I was unaware that the debate was between 

the two and that there was a winner or loser. There were three others on the 

and all were interesting and had some good points to make. Whether one 

agreed or not. How annoying to make those points and then have the media

apparently ignore your presence. It was revealed by the media that some of the

audience may have been 'plants' by the panelists [Quelle Surprise] - the chappie

who challenged Brand to stand for Parliament is apparently the brother of a 

UKIP MEP and may stand for office himself. Brand himself wrote a long piece on 

facebook talking about his experience and his views and if, dear reader, you 

care to google there are many media articles taking sides on the 'debate'.

But today the lovely poet Michael Rosen has put up a view on facebook which I

want to share beyond facebook participants. So here it is. He wrote:

"I keep thinking of the young working class bloke (or he said he was) in the 

audience of Question Time who said that the working class had been hit hardest 

by immigration. What a  terrible success of the lie that his low wages have 

been caused by immigrants. What's incredible is that he could believe this at a 

time when it has been explicit - nay, boasted of - information coming from 

government and everywhere else that they are sacking people and 

keeping down wages as part of 'austerity'. So, in the usual run of things, the 

government 'freezes' wages (that is, cuts them in real terms) and the private 

sector uses that as a means to fix the rates too. That's what employers do. It's 

their 'job' to do that. They're paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to 

freeze wages. It's what they're doing.

And the bloke in the audience says that he's been hit by immigrants.

I hope a trade union organiser finds him at work on Monday and signs him up."

MY COMMENT:
Wilfred Owen in WW1 wrote about the 'Old Lie' [Dulce et Decorum est] One hundred years later, another poet talks about another 'new' old lie.



Michael and I seemed to be watching the same programme. Thank goodness, as many of the commentators in the media yesterday didn't. We are entering the General Election propaganda period now, so look out for more 'new' Old Lies. Take the Politicians up on them all. Remember that if we let them get away with them, it is people like us that will suffer. Millions of us. Remember the man who said last time 'We are the party of the NHS'?* Did you believe him? Will you believe what he says this time? Just asking?

BTW I don't support Brand's views on not voting. I think that the only way we can change anything is through the ballot box. But also we should get involved by going to meetings, asking questions, lobbying MPs and candidates. We are part of the political processes. If we don't participate in however small a way, we cannot after the election complain. And as I and many others say on election days 'Many have died to get the vote so we shouldn't waste it'.




*Of course, David Cameron.

For the first time ever, no photo. Formatting and time have defeated me. I may return later and add something inappropriate!