Skip to main content

Who should I vote for?

I have a problem with the upcoming European elections - I don't know who to vote for, so I'm asking for your help. Not voting is not an option that I am prepared to consider - I value democracy too highly - but I struggle to be happy with any of the options.

As a starting point I am a genuine floating voter. I change my allegiance from election to election - I don't understand the tribalism a lot of people exhibit when it comes to political parties, I just want the best option. If everything was even, I would probably vote Liberal Democrat as the broad feel of the party aligns best with my generally liberal orientation, but I have two big problems with their policies. These issues don't include, by the way, the business over tuition fees. Anyone who holds that against the LibDems is incredibly naive - you can't enter into a coalition and carry forward all you policies. To expect that to happen seems very silly. I wish they had been able to do away with tuition fees, but they weren't able to.

The two big issues for me with the LibDems are energy policy and Europe. On energy they have for so long been anti-nuclear, and that is just poor science*. I don't know the current policy in the hierarchy, but my suspicion is the majority of LibDems still don't understand why we should by now be getting a lot of our electricity from nuclear power. As for Europe, the LibDems were the only party wholeheartedly behind going into the Euro - we know what a disaster that would have been. More importantly now, they are just not critical enough of the European Union. While I accept the 'you can change more from the inside' argument, the EU is without doubt a ridiculously overinflated bureaucracy that interferes with far more than it should. And the European Parliament is not a real parliament - it really doesn't debate and alter legislation the way a parliament should. So given this is an EU election, I can't vote LibDem.

Looking at the list of candidates I will be voting for**, I can similarly dismiss the Greens for their opposition to nuclear power and general misunderstanding of environmental issues, putting knee-jerk emotional response over what is actually best for us. I find the Conservatives view on Europe too rabid, though I do like the idea of a referendum on Europe - the trouble is, my vote in the Euro elections has no influence on this. And anyway, I'd rather not vote for them on principle. My problem is rather different with Labour - I really don't understand their position on Europe. They may have a closer view to mine than most of the others, but I'm not clear they want to stand up for reducing European bureaucracy - they had over 10 years to attempt this and in that time did nothing. And then there is UKIP. (Groan.)

I can honestly say almost everything about UKIP makes me feel nauseous in the extreme. I don't make the mistake of thinking they are largely ultra-right wing bigots, a kind of BNP lite, because that's not a rational assessment. They are mostly older voters who are fed up with change, and I can understand that and don't think we should belittle them for it with terms like 'swivel-eyed' - I just think they are wrong. Admittedly I do enjoy the way they openly despise the EU bureaucracy (and can't help but smile at Mr Farage's rants in the European Parliament), but in the end, their approach is not the right way to get anything done. It is too negative and not constructive. And anyway, have you seen some of their candidates?

So there you have it. I want to vote, but I'm not sure there is anyone I can vote for. The only other party on the list is the 'English Democrats', which I knew nothing about before researching this post, but is apparently trying to be the English equivalent of the Scottish Nationlists/Plaid Cymru - but it also seems to be positioned well to the right of UKIP on the political spectrum despite claiming no left/right allegiance. This does not fill me with enthusiasm - in fact they even come below the Greens in my preferences. So I'm stuck. Help!

* [UPDATE] I have since noticed that the Lib-Dems became pro-nuclear last year - but I still can't forgive years of opposition.

** When I first wrote this piece I had no idea who my candidates were: thanks to Hayley Stevens for pointing out this website which, though still under construction, at least lists them.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope