Blog:Lies, Damned Lies, and Politics
From Bolton Interweb
del.icio.usMyles Aweigh, Election Correspondent, 28th April 2010
It's obvious, it's an election. But the amount of mistruths being told is incredible even by the low standards of the typical British politician. If candidates that tell us what their opponents are going to do are automatically disqualified but we would have no candidates left. The papers do it as well. This is an election fought on misrepresentation of opponents rather than on candidates' own policies. I can't recall such a negative campaign but it is indicative of how close the party policies actually are on major issues. It might also be an explanation of why you can't put a fag paper between the three main parties when it comes to opinion polls. They are all saying more or less the same thing and the only choice is which bunch come over as most trustworthy.
On the eve of the third leaders' debate it is becoming more and more clear that we are going to have a hung parliament and no real way of predicting which party will come out with the most seats as we've never been in this three horse race situation before. Forget comparisons with 1974, there is actually no precedent in most people's living memory for a parliament that might be so equally split that minority government is not a viable option and coalition virtually a necessity. Put aside the lies told by the Tories about the consequences of a hung parliament, a coalition where representatives of 60%+ of the voters runs the country is a true democracy reliant on consensus, with the result that good laws get passed and loony laws don't. It does seem that the voters actually positively want that outcome so it is down to the parties to respond. Which means, Mr Cameron, drop the scare stories and start thinking about cooperation. Germany is a very successful economy run by coalitions. Plenty of other countries are run very successfully by coalitions. The City has already discounted a hung parliament and the markets are not going to panic and dive when the results show what we already know. The economy will be nursed back to health a lot quicker and more effectively by a government, for the first time in modern history, carrying the support of two thirds of the people.
But the British electoral system still makes the eventual outcome unpredictable. It is conceivable that the Lib Dems could now end up with the most seats and have the responsibility of negotiating with other parties to form a government rather than being the party being courted. This could be an absolutely historic election that changes the face of politics forever. It was already going to be difficult to predict due to the MPs' expenses scandal and the likelihood of some big swings in some places against incumbents caught with their fingers in the till. The concept of a safe seat had already all but disappeared. Then add the Leaders' debates and the massive Lib Dem surge, and literally anything could happen. Those predictive models were not built for that. With the margins between the parties so tight anything, including Mr Brown's inexcusable insult directed towards a Rochdale widow who dared to ask him some probing questions, could be enough to tip the final result. Inappropriate and inane grinning as he left the lady's house after apologising, and appearing to blame an aide, Sky News, not hearing a question properly and the boogey man, did not help. He insulted an elector, one of his own supporters, and it was indicative of the real man who would be PM again.
Immigration was apparently at the root of "Bigot-gate" and is the surprise (to the politicians) issue of the campaign. In times of plenty migrants are necessary to fill all the low-grade support service jobs in shops, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and care homes. But in times of economic woe there is a tendency, and not a logical or pleasant tendency in virtually any country you can think of, to blame migrants and want them booted out. There is no doubt that immigration policies in the UK, over the last few years have been highly effective in many respects. Humour me on that one rather than getting into a debate. But what shocks me, and is at the root of anti-immigrant sentiment is not the entry criteria, but what happens after the migrants arrive. If I emigrated, which sometimes appeals greatly, I would not expect social housing and benefits from my chosen new home at least until I had paid taxes for 5 years or more. I wouldn't expect all official communications to be translated into English. I wouldn't expect free health or education services unless I was paying taxes. If migrants want to come here and have skills we need then personally I welcome them all. But they have to speak the language, make strides to integrate into British society, and support themselves until they have contributed to the pot sufficiently. I am not sure the politicians understand that properly. The perception is that the UK is a soft touch - come here and we will house, feed, and clothe you and your families without any need to contribute. Some of that is not the migrants' fault - we prohibit the 25,000 asylum seekers waiting for a decision from working and supporting themselves. Fair and reciprocal treatment for all migrants is right but preferential treatment is not.
I did think that I would not vote for any candidate but spoil the ballot - you must vote, people died to get you that vote and people are dying elsewhere in the World to get a vote even now. But I have changed my mind. I want to contribute towards the Hung Parliament Party so Nick Clegg you have my vote in the bag.
For the truth about immigration stats, try Mark Easton's article on Immigration By Numbers. In 2008, far from getting a huge influx of migrants from outside the EU, the ones we have control over, there was a net loss of 8,000. Yep, more left than came here. Cameron talks about transition arrangements for new EU member states but this says nothing about existing member states and there are no new member states currently on the cards. So irrelevant. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here legally on visas and don't leave when they should; they don't arrive on the underside of trucks. Apparently the biggest culprits are Aussies and I don't hear anyone complaining about there being too many of them in the country. No-one knows how many illegals there are - it is impossible to tell. But let's say around a million. UKBA removes 65,000 a year and it is hard to see how this can be increased by any meaningful extent. So assume no more visas are issued at all and every truck is searched thoroughly before it arrives, it would take 15 years to round up and remove the ones already here. The Lib Dem policy on legalising some of those illegals is beginning to sound far more practical and sensible that sticking to the idea the problem can be solved by being completely uncompromising.
© Evrose, 2010
