Makin' Your Mind Up

So I’m going all partisan on you. My strict policy of utter neutrality* is now to be abandoned to reveal what I will be doing on Thursday in the European election.

And the answer is that I have decided to give the Greens a go.

There is a whole host of reasons for this, but some of them are as follows:

Across a big multi-member constituency, there is real scope for smaller parties to be successful. 8 MEPS for London means that 12.5% guarantees an MEP for the Greens – and last time they got in with under 11%.

Across Europe, the Green Party is actually a far more cohesive force that many of the other groupings.

The Green group is the fourth largest in the parliament with 59 MEPS. The vast majority of these are Greens, with a few minorities (like the SNP) thrown in for light relief. Compare that to the left or right groups which have much more disparate memberships.

Whilst the EU has not been an unqualified success in all areas, it has generally set standards for individual rights (e.g. consumer protection) and environmental standards, which have improved our quality of life. And these are areas where the Green movement has led the charge. (On that point, when you here UK politicians talking about EU interference, think about this story. I watched a programme about the Thalidomide tragedy on TV last week. Distillers, the importer of the (German manufactured) drug defended on the grounds that they only shipped it in, and had no liability, having not done any testing. Nowadays that importer would have a strict liability – it is liable even if at no fault. And this is due to EU action.)

There are some downsides to the Green Party – and this is where I have had to do most of my thinking. 

There is still an anti-science tendency. They've backed down form supporting homeopathy – leader Natalie Bennett calling it “scientific nonsense” on the excellent Pod Delusion here. But I struggle with the “trashing” of GM test-sites (Genetically Modified foods). By all means oppose things, but stymieing research through violence probably isn't the right way.

And there is still a lot of bashing of bankers and capitalism in general. Whilst the last six years has shown huge defects in our current capitalist model, around complexity, regulation and concentration of power, it isn't all bad. But for capitalism, we’d all still be serfs working for the local Lord of the Manor.

I've at least parked these concerns, if not got over them – I think they’d be back if I thought the Greens were a government-in-waiting. All parties have their recidivist tendencies – there are true planned economy socialists within Labour, and anti-gay Tories, and Lib-Dems who don’t believe in selling out their principles for power. (If you are any of the things above, simply reverse the premise and see that as the unacceptable wing of your party – Blairite capitalist Labour, Conservatives with a conscience etc.)

I have decided that in the round, the plusses outweigh the minuses. For Europe anyway. For the local Council I'm still thinking. I have three votes. Standing are 1 Green, 1 UKIP, 2 Liberals and three each for Lab and Con. For this election I'm still in Buck Fizz time.

They Fade to Grey

I had a comment on yesterday's blog via Facebook as follows:

Farage gets airtime because, however else he is found wanting, he doesn't lack character. He makes good sound bites because he clearly says what he's thinking. Same has gone for paddy pantsdown, Alan Clark, Ann Widdecombe (aka Doris Karloff), Dennis Skinner and many others over the years. At least they don't have to check their pagers and phones and get clearance from ground control to stay on message with HQ.

A perfect excuse to do another political post, so here goes…

It is certainly true that many politicians are bland and safe these days. And it is true that Boris Johnson is popular because he is a "character", and that I struggle to think of too many others right now. So it is probably right that Farage gets airtime for that reason. But airtime doesn't always means popularity.

And I don't know if this is worse than in previous generations. I suspect more convergence - it is much harder to tell Conservative from LibDem from Labour, as they increasingly come from a background of similar degrees, universities and non-jobs. But back in the 1970s there was a Labour type, just as there was a Tory type, and success often meant resembling it. There were non-conformists like Tony Benn, but were they more frequent than the ones we have now, and if so, is that because running a modern organisation allows and requires more control?

I don’t think that is why Farage is a) popular and b) doing well. I think he is gathering support because he is offering easy answers. Implicit for me in the UKIP message is that if we withdraw from Europe, and stop poor foreigners coming over here (and make those here more likely to go back) then everything will be fine. The other parties are promising more of what we have now, or very similar, at least to the untutored eye.

Of course, it cannot be as simple as that. If UKIP were to be in government and to follow through on those policies, we would still be a country with a huge deficit. And we would lack many of the low-paid individuals that the NHS relies on (and that much of London also requires). And we would be a country that had turned its back on some fairly fundamental human rights legislation, but let's gloss over that for the moment*.

But they give us an answer. A simple answer, even if it is the wrong answer to the wrong question. And people want an easy answer.

The real problem is that this country is hugely over-reliant on house prices and low interest rates to keep heads above water and the only way to sort the deep-lying economic woes is to reduce that reliance. Plus we need to educate people in relevant skills and ensure that jobs exist. Ideally higher wage jobs, rather than call centres. A recovery led by employment, not buy-to-let. And before you start calling me a socialist (because I don't see what any of the above  had to do with who controls the means of production) look at the US recovery - which has been built on jobs. Often poorly paid ones, but jobs nonetheless.

UKIP offers none of this. Mind you, neither do the three main parties - because it is not appealing to the core middle England voters to say that this may mean your house price is, at best, not going to go up for the next decade, but your mortgage payments probably are.

And of course, we aren't voting for someone to run the country. Officially we are voting at one end for people to represent us in Europe, and at the other for people to run our local services. And there is no reason why one party should be good at both, or good at that and at running a country. But we are encouraged to view this as a referendum on the government – a big vote for [you decide] will mean changed policies for all three big parties at the next election. And if that means you are left with a bunch of idiots running your local council for the next four years – well, tough.

And that's I think enough about people and personalities, and a trailer for what this should be about, which is policies. So that's where we will be next time.

* Here's a tip. Whenever anyone suggests leaving the Convention on Human Rights, or repealing the Human Rights Act, ask them which of the rights they would like to get rid of. And wait for an answer. You'll have time to make a cup of tea.