Something a bit more me... maybe

My recent penchants for personal blogging has led me to a greater interest in the world of meaningless but nonetheless entertainingly distracting cultural affairs pieces the likes of which you will find adorning any news website. Or in fact any website by the looks of it. After getting drawn in by Dom Joly's fairly frequent posts on Facebook (because that is what social networking is for; pretending we're on close terms with the people we see on television) I have begun to lose myself every now and then in the strange world of the opinion piece. And you do learn a lot of not very useful but ultimately mind-altering things.

These mini-epiphanies are never going to make you suddenly abandon all your previously held beliefs and follow the word of these quasi-journalists word-for-word, but they do have the power to produce a change of opinion from "meh..." to the slightly more inflectual "... oh really..." Such sounds are obviously meaningless on paper, but I hope I have got across the general idea. Maybe I'll demonstrate them if you ever see me in the street.

But all this opinion observation creates a very obvious yet oft ignored question; 'What do I think?' Now I'm sure many of you will scoff at this, as anyone else who has partaken of the delights of journalistic blogs will doubtless have noticed that beneath a large proportion of these (not mine, though, I have noticed) will be a long list of responses where people have decided to offer up their views on these opinions, and you may have even commented like this yourself. This surely, then, shows that people know what they think as they are telling us. But I wish to suggest that this is not necessarily as clear as might be thought.

You see, opinion is a very strange concept. We often cling to it as a defense of outlandish statements that are either bizarre, unfounded or, in the worst instances, hurtful. But where does it really come from? It seems to me to be a rather 'chicken or egg' question. We can be personally inclined to follow a course of action because we believe that is the right thing to do, but then it could be that we think it is the right thing to do because our minds could not accept doing otherwise. And thus a circle starts up and grows and grows and someone gets labelled as 'opinionated'. But other factors could be at play here.

I have already mentioned the ability of the opinion of others to influence the opinions of others. Consider how much you are exposed to the opinions of others in just a single day and it becomes clear that opinion may well be in a constant state of flux. Whilst there will undoubtedly be cases where you strongly agree or disagree, which will probably cause very little change, there will also be cases where opinions present a totally new viewpoint of 'fact' that will influence your 'opinion' in some way. This has happened since we were young, and so a whole lifetime of these little influences may well be the underlying cause of any opinion driven line of thought. So, therefore, we come back to this question; 'What do I think?'

Because now the 'I' in that posing question is in doubt. Am 'I' the result of my own mind, or is what I think merely the result of years of the thoughts of others building our mindset? How can we be really sure that the opinion we perceive is one that is finely crafted by our individual grey matter or one which has simply been handed to us by an outside scriptwriter? It's certainly become difficult to be sure, especially nowadays where an infinite stream of opinion is being presented to us by everyone and their dog. Even the Page 3 girl, with breasts exposed and modesty abandoned, now has a small section devoted to her opinion of world matters. What room, then, is left for our own thoughts?

So, that question again. 'What do I think?' The answer is not about a response to what we hear about an event, but to what actually evokes these responses. Our thoughts are always going to be influenced by others, but how far does this go back? Is the human race simply a continuous copy of those who came before? As we learn more and more about the world, it makes sense that there will be less and less that can be new, and this is something which is true for every area of culture.

Maybe it is just that opinion is at a premium; that there are only so many ways in which people can think and we have exhausted them all. Douglas Adams' notion of the Earth being a supercomputer intended to uncover the question of Life, the Universe and Everything amusingly springs to mind. Perhaps we are simply working towards that inevitable conclusion and, maybe, we're not all that far away. But then, what do I know?

Do you have an opinion? Tell us what you think through whatever medium is nearest to you right now. Or maybe, use all of them!

On discussions with polar opposites...

So, by the end of the day we may finally have some form of resultant decision from the endless talking that has been going on regarding the formation of government. News viewing figures may very well drop rapidly and one way or the other, people will be unhappy. But life will go on I'm sure. Hopefully...

Now, there has been a lot said about different arrangements and possibilities and problems with these various possibilities and problems with policies and overall, there's not really been any actual advancement in clarity with anything. This is sad, because usually that is what news broadcasters are supposed to do. But I suppose, in reality, there isn't a lot anyone can do but theorise as there really isn't a surefire way this can go. Anything that happens is likely to be rather temporary and we should all gear up for another election within a year or two.

And this in itself is sad, because it would be fairly nice to see a success from whatever coalition arises. Especially if the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition succeeds, as what more ammunition could the Lib Dems want to support PR than the example of successful governments where two parties that are fairly disparate actually bury their respective axes to grind and bandy together to help the country recover and succeed. Sadly, I worry that the Tories are too petty to try and give in to the middle ground enough to get on with anyone, but they are the party that must have government formed around them for many reasons. I'm sure a lot of people wont see why, but bear with me and I'll try and straighten it out.

First of all, Nick Clegg has made it very clear throughout campaigning that the right to govern is determined by the support of the highest number of people. And he is right. And no matter how much a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems may be favourable to the majority of us, if we start undermining the concept of an election then we start to lose touch with democracy and instead begin the slippery slide into something resembling Stalinism or Mugabism. If that even exists yet. The people have a right to have their voices heard, and a chosen government should be arranged to suit the needs of the majority.

Secondly; Labour are clearly in a mess right now, and should really be looking to simply slink off to the opposition benches, lick their wounds, and start the process of pointing out every single thing the Conservatives do which goes against the public good. For now I will not look to presume any inevitability to this occurring, but I wont be surprised if it does. But with Gordon Brown resigning, no matter how much this could lead to Lib Dem support, it still wouldn't be democratic to suddenly allow a completely new leader take the reigns of the country straight away without a show of public support.

There has been the argument that any election is not a vote for a leader but for a party, but the fact is that when a new leader is elected, that party undergoes a change, and so the party that may have won seats and gained votes is not the same as the one that exists after a change in leader. So for now, a Labour led government is not democratically viable.

It is also not really very numerically viable. Whereas the Tories and The Lib Dems alone would easily form a majority, Labour would essentially need the support of every other smaller party to gain the majority. Now again, whilst there may well be a large uniting force determined to keeping the Conservatives from power, this is not enough to form a solid government, which must be the priority right now, even if only for a year or so, so that some work can be done on the long process of restoring financial parity. Asking two parties to negotiate is not too unreasonable. Asking them all to negotiate is a bit unlikely.

And this need for decisiveness is why we cant just leave the Tories on their own. Were they to try to go it alone, they would most likely just keep getting out voted and we'd be having another election before you know it and the likelihood as I see it is that people would just vote Tory to get this over and done with. Therefore, if the Lib Dem supporters were to simply bite the bullet and accept that; providing their influence will be felt in decision making and providing they can distance themselves from being a scapegoat for failed policies, a working with the Conservatives may well work for their benefit, and will at least limit any Tory policy that works against the larger, less well off part of the public. If successful, this could see a rise in the support for the Lib Dems after showing that they can contribute to a successful government, and they may gain a greater support in their pursuit of a fairer electoral system after seeing how they can be successful. And what's more, they could limit any future gains in support for the Tories if they can show themselves to have played a big enough part in forming laws.

Now obviously, the big problems that arise when you try and merge two quite distinctly contrasting policies together like the Tories and the Lib Dems, it's going to mean a lot of people will be unhappy with the compromise. Firstly I would like to directly respond to these people by suggesting they grow up and get some perspective past their own selfish desires. Secondly, I would suggest that what may happen is that a show of compromise is made to pander to doubters from the other party but in reality, has about as much substance as Katie Price.

To back this up I wish to close on looking at the "very generous offer" of a referendum on the alternative vote system by the Tories. Now, aside from the fact that AV is about as far away from PR as the current system is, the real depth of the Tory offer is that they are willing to put the idea of changing the political system to a public vote. They have not said they will support this vote and they have not said they will not actively campaign against it. Which leads me to think that they have put this offer on the table knowing full well the public may not vote for it, being that it is so far away from being what we really want as well as knowing that they can quite easily buy the support of the Murdoch empire to convince people it is bad. This isn't surprising on its own, but when we consider that a discussion between the Tories and the Lib Dems is going to be full of these "generous offers" I can quite easily see the Lib Dems getting chewed up and spit out if Clegg isn't very careful and very clever.

However, this could still yet again work to the Lib Dems advantage, as they can then show how dishonest the Tories have been and how they were not interested in the spirit of progressive democracy and then press for a new election, knowing that they have already got a discussion in place with Labour after the talks of the last few days, that Labour could easily rally more support from their new leader, and that the Tory bubble had burst after any petty unwillingness to work constructively with another party. Obviously, this is only one example of what could happen, and is the work of a feverishly left-wing and democratic mind set and optimistic to say the least. But success in politics is, sadly, knowing how to play the game to get what you want. As long a Clegg is sincere, however, that may just coincide with what we want for once as well.

Some perspective...

Having finally finished off my exciting expose on debt collection agencies which I shan't bore you with on here, I wish to add my insight into the current events regarding the recent election and the results that have us all wondering "... so, what happens now?"

First of all, i wish to comment on the bizarre practice of not allowing people to vote. This seems to somewhat invalidate the result to me, as clearly a lot of these people were present at the polling station before the closing time of 10 o'clock but due to the truly British past-time of being boorishly punctual, many of these people were refused their democratic right. In this country this is outrageous and should result in severe action against those with the most severe limitations of foresight and common sense to allow this to happen. However, to those that were turning up with minutes to spare; you did have a full 15 hours to vote. What the hell were you doing the rest of that time?

But now on to the results and; surprise, surprise it led to a hung parliament and surprise, surprise a number of parties got utterly shafted by this archaic voting system. Now, whilst I can't hide my delight at the news that the BNP not only failed to gain a parliamentary seat but also lost pretty much their entire council representation over the whole country in one fell swoop, we do find the entire spectrum of political parties other than "the big two" are pretty poorly represented despite a fairly good showing in actual votes. No surprise to learn, then, that today saw the first of what I assume could be many outright demonstrations seeking to encourage the abandonment of 'first-past-the-post politics.' Sadly, this could well come to nought.

You see, the one thing that a certain group of politicians took from this is that the Conservative party gained the highest number of seats and votes, and so are claiming themselves the victors by technical knockout. Depressing though this may be it currently leaves the nation waiting on the edge of their seat for news from Nick 'The Kingmaker' Clegg as to whether he is to accept David Cameron's offer of "cooperation" in the future government. No doubt Clegg's decision to allow Cameron to make the first deal will be to the dismay of many of his supporters, but I, for one, am personally impressed with the man's integrity to stand by his key principles in allowing the most supported party the first crack at playing Happy Cabinets. I do, however, join the long list of people who are skeptical that such a coalition will take place this side of Hell freezing over. Mainly because Cameron will never even let the thought of electoral reform being on the table even fleetingly dance across his mind but, also, because Clegg knows, like many of us do, that Cameron is a conniving, arrogant bastard who would sooner let a commoner touch his shoe than change the way elections work and damage his prospects for further holding on to power.

Because when the Conservative supporters complain about electoral reform reducing the likelihood that any party gain an overall majority they actually mean that PR will prevent the Tories from doing what they want. And the Tories don't do compromise well. Another reason why a coalition won't happen. But the fact is, the current system is a cheat. OK, it might mean that a party can pass rules without fear of any opposition, but considering that no party has ever achieved over 50% of the vote since the end of the war (and possibly further back, but there's only so much research I'm willing to do) then surely, statistically, the majority of people may not actually have wanted to put that party in that position in the first place. In fact it can't be too unreasonable to say that, in truth, more people didn't want that party in that position. And yet there they are, changing the rules as they wish without really conferring with anyone else. If you ask me, that sounds less like democracy and more like a dictatorship hidden under the guise of a democracy. Clever eh? And strangely, the only party to straight out refuse a change is the Conservative Party. If that doesn't reflect their core beliefs I don't know what does.

But, some numbers. The Tories are claiming they have the support of the biggest chunk of the country. Sadly, they are wrong. Voter turnout was about 30 million, roughly two-thirds of the voting population if BBC stats are accurate, and I hope they are. So there were about 15 million people who did not vote. Most, presumably, by choice. As for the Tories, they received about 10 and a half million votes. Therefore, the highest supported political idea was not Conservatism but Apathy. Roughly a third of the population decided that there was no point making that short walk to the polling station. Clearly, something is wrong with the system, otherwise everyone would be voting. Clearly something needs to change. And yet the Conservatives, with all their harping on about change, have fallen at the first hurdle by refusing to offer any real positive steps on making this change in this clearly poorly supported electoral system.

The next few weeks and months could be a struggle. We can presume that the Lib Dems will not get offered anywhere near enough to make siding with the Tories worthwhile. Whilst at the same time we can possibly assume that Clegg will most likely feel uncomfortable working with someone so unpopular as Brown, so it is difficult to see where we go from here. The possibility of a Lib/Lab pact is somewhat promising if still not a secure enough government. Similarly, if the Tories are sincere about giving the Lib Dems genuine influence then we may be seeing the start of some actual progress in democracy, but without the electoral reform to back up this sudden willingness of the Tories to share power it is unlikely to go anywhere. A little like this blog in a way, because there is no real conclusion, other than to counter the Conservative arguments that the people have spoken in there favour, because the reality is over three quarters of the public chose to not vote Conservative, and nearly two thirds of voters voted against a Conservative government. And yet their opinion is likely to count for nothing in the full face of the Conservative run government which will be deciding their lives for the near future.

It would be nice if somebody important realised this. I could stop talking about it then.

more serious stuff I'm afraid

First off, I wish to apologise in advance for any glaring typos but for some reason an increased amount of typing has led to me, in fact, getting worse at it.

Secondly, I had planned to hold off on this until after the election because I do want to encourage voting in this election as it could be the start of some ACTUAL change in how our country works, provided we head off into a hung parliament like the polls suggest. But it couldn't wait. I really wanted to blog.

Because there is a massive problem in how are country is run. Many blame the voting system, and they do have a fantastic point. There are many online gadgets which will show you just how bad a reflection of public opinion the election system is. But that's not it. There are also those that will argue a case that politicians are untrustworthy, thanks to broken promises and various scandals. Well, that's not quite it either, but it's close. No, the biggest problem is something much more widespread, more integral to the system. The problem is the parties themselves. Their very existence. Their dominant role in governing the other people.

OK, let me clarify with this question: When (if) you go to vote tomorrow, who are you voting for? The direct influence of your vote is to push the recipient of your vote one little step closer to representing your local area in parliament. But is this really what you are thinking about when you chose who to vote for? How much do you really know about the person you put an X next to on the ballot paper? The likelihood is that, unless you have chosen an Independent candidate, you don't know anything about the individual, but are choosing based on the party you wish to be in power after all the votes are counted. I guess this in itself is fair enough, there is a logic that if you like the party as a whole, their candidate is going to share the same values.

But this election has thrown up a further issue. Tactical voting. Because there will be places where your chosen party is the least likely to win, and so you may feel encouraged to vote for the party that you least want to win the election as a whole. But then, how is that supposed to represent your beliefs on how you want the country governed? How do you know that in ensuring your choice for Prime Minister is given the greatest chance to succeed, you are not undermining your local area by voting for someone who will not best represent your interests in parliament? That is the problem with partisan politics. It undermines the importance of the local electorate. So much so, in fact, that in this election there has been a quite dramatic shift away from every day MPs going door to door trying to gain the support of the voters. Instead, such campaigning has been left to the prospective leaders-in-waiting in big, showy, organised events to win people over to "the party". Rather Orwellian, really.

So, back to the BIG question. How much do you know about the person you vote for? As has been evident in this election, there has been a slight lack of clarity regarding the intentions of all of the major parties. Now, considering the undoubtedly bad times that are coming regardless of who is elected, it could be understood that the reason for this is that being clear about policies would be a sure-fire way of losing votes. Except, there is a huge indication that, actually, voters are clearly aware that desperate things have to happen, and would appreciate a more specific list of what these will be so that they can choose who will make things easier or safer for them. This was reflected after the first leaders debate when Nick Clegg was shown to be fresh, new and, above all, honest. His popularity rocketed upwards in the polls and suddenly he was a real contender. Sadly, he bottled it somewhat and resorted to the political type. Spineless, shallow and lacking any real answers (I still think he's the best of the three, before you ask, but he really failed to take full advantage to enforce the idea of change). People clearly just want answers. They want to know what they can expect. They want to vote for policies, not people.

The problem is, politicians just treat us like numbers. They see polls going up and down and try and make themselves appeal as much as possible. Until it has led to this "X-Factor" politics. Every politician tries to set themselves apart from this approach but every single one that does is a hypocrite. And that is all anyone will see them as. And so we come to the real problem. Politicians are so driven by the needs of the party, to maintain party image and to ensure the success of the party and; as a result, themselves, that in the end, policies become a minor concern for politicians underneath boosting the image of their party and bashing the others. This isn't politics. This is just an extension of the schoolboy popularity contests that went on in every public school that these politicians came from. Politics has become about individual ego boosting and parties are just another set of establishments that are too concerned about gaining support and power that they neglect thoughts of progression or flexibility in times of crisis. And this is what will bring the country down.

So yes, this is why our voting system should change to some form of proportional representation, because it will mean your vote matters more and it may encourage more importance of local candidates. An opposition to this is that a majority will be impossible in these situations. But surely that is not the point. Surely the point is that parliament should reflect the opinion and wishes of the country. And this country is rarely ever going to have an overwhelming majority all in favour of the same things. It is the diversity of the country that has provided it its greatest progressions. If we had discussion between the full spectrum of political allegiances we may actually get decisions that reflect the opinions of EVERYONE, not just the richest few or those who need more benefits or those who like public services. Everyone. However, the political system today, being driven by party politics as it is, will never see this as they are too busy striving for the power they have so feverishly fantasised about since lying around lonely in their Eton school beds. So bring on a hung parliament. And screw party lines. We're in charge, make your politicians think about their people first and their own ego trips second.

"So what's the solution?" I hear you scream... well the 6 of you that may read this. But the problem is solutions mean nothing if the people that need to implement it on our behalf are not going to do it if it means disrupting their comfortable, cushy party positions. But the ideal situation would be scrapping political parties and having individuals running for policies that reflect their local area in the national parliament. After this, an impartial arbitrator is elected to direct proceedings in the event of national emergencies whilst having no influence on policy or decisions. Its not perfect yet, I'm still working on it. But anything that will limit any power driven organisations and encourage equal deliberation on the processes of government. That way, the politicians will actually be working for us, rather than us having to choose the best of, quite frankly, an awful bunch.

As for tomorrow, I dunno, vote for whoever. I'm not sure it will make a lot of difference in the long run. The most important thing is to keep involved. If things aren't how you want them, bug your MP, bug your politicians. You voted, make sure you get your vote's worth. If enough people do this then they will realise they have to change. Properly, not just the hollow promise of 'change' that the parties are fighting over the rights to at the moment. And maybe we can get what WE want for once.