If Voting Changed Anything...

The organisation I used to work for gave everyone an annual appraisal, at which every employee would be awarded a rating from one to five. A rating of one or two meant that you were a high performer; a four rating meant that you required improvement and a five signified that you were probably beyond redemption and should consider an alternative line of work. The majority of people were rated three. Management frequently denied the existence of a bell curve but generally ratings were allocated such that 20% of people were ones or twos, 10% were fours or fives leaving 70% in the middle, rated three. And that is how the population of Britain are generally affected by the result of a general election, and especially in the event of a change of government, which likely means that 20% of the population are better off, 10% are worse off but for 70% of us there really is little difference except the colour of the Prime Minister's tie.

The latest polls suggest that it is pretty much even stevens between the Conservatives and Labour but with UKIP outperforming the Liberal Democrats and the Greens it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that UKIP could hold the balance of power in another hung parliament. Except that a couple of by-election victories (notorious for protest votes and being overturned in a general election) and a good showing in the polls count for nothing in the real thing. But, UKIP undoubtedly have the main three parties worried, or if not worried then certainly mindful of the potential they have to exploit the great swathes of the electorate disenchanted with the red and blue hues of UK politics.  Perhaps more worryingly for the Tories, and it has to be said, for Labour, is the possibility of the Scottish Nationalists winning enough seats to hold the balance of power, a more credible possibility than UKIP doing so.  

Except that the SNP won six seats last time out (six more than UKIP, mind you!) so are they really a threat to the cosy two and a half party system we currently have? Anyone's guess really, after all at the last election the "other" parties mustered just 36 seats between them, twenty less than the Lib-Dems and for all the sabre rattling that the wee Jimmy Krankie lookalike has been doing it is possible that the SNP will have as much influence in Westminster next month as Sinn Fein or the independents. We have seen it before in the run up to elections, usually it is the Lib-Dems, talking up their chances but aside from a few mild shocks in unseating a more favoured candidate, ultimately failing to deliver. There are 59 seats in Scotland; Labour hold 41 and the Lib-Dems 11 and yes, the SNP will likely win a chunk of those but it remains to be seen if it will be enough to make a difference.

Wee Jimmy Krankie

"The most dangerous woman in the world" according to Piers Morgan in the Daily Mail

While David Cameron and the Tories have been bigging up the threat that the SNP pose, wheeling out former PM John Major this week, it is perhaps Labour that have more to fear from the nationalists, although contrarily the Tories would probably welcome Labour holding them off north of the border. If nothing else, it makes this campaign more interesting than the norm to see the major parties worried about more than each other, but it remains a somewhat tedious aspect of British politics (and likely, politics the world over) that party leaders and party spokesmen spend more time and effort bad mouthing their opponents than propounding their own policies.

The Tories wheeled out John Major to talk about the threat posed by the SNP

In the interest of balance, here is a picture of a former Labour Prime Minister.

The SNP may be limited to fielding candidates in Scotland but chances are they will return more MPs than UKIP, because despite UKIP's by-election successes at Clacton and in Rochester & Strood, it is really doubtful that they will translate that into more seats on 7th May. By-elections are notorious for producing unusual, protest driven results and I would be surprised if the confidence the party exudes is translated into bums on seats at Westminster. UKIP have such a propensity to shoot themselves in the foot anyway that it is difficult to take them seriously. They remind me of the man who sits next to you on the bus, engages you in polite, sane conversation for five minutes before declaring that he is actually King of The Lizard People and that his tribe will be arriving from Venus imminently. Otherwise apparently sane people are giving the party some credence by supporting them publicly; I think it will all end in tears. For a party so obsessed about geography (in the sense that they want us out of Europe and migrant Europeans out of the UK), it is ironic that they have such a frail grasp of local geography as they have been thrusting leaflets through my door asking me to vote for their candidate in the neighbouring constituency. Mind you, Labour are no better as they have done the same. I actually had the (correct) UKIP candidate at my front door a week or so ago; he seemed to be a perfectly normal, sane human being, but I suppose appearances can be deceptive, he might have told me that he was the Lizard King if I'd let him talk long enough.

While this election has some features that make it slightly different, slightly edgier, even slightly more interesting than some past polls, one element that remains the same is the manifesto. If a politician's broken promises could be cashed we'd all be rich and the cheque they are written on is the manifesto. Clearly no politician ever believed that they would be called to account for their manifesto, actually ever made to fulfil their empty promises considering the drivel they put out. Mind you, did any uncommitted voter ever read a manifesto and say, "You know what, I like the cut of their jib and I really think they will make good on their promises"? Apart from the King of The Lizard People that is. Perhaps manifestos should be made legally binding and subject to performance related pay. Win the election and fail to met your targets and have your pay slashed or get booted out. Perhaps disgruntled voters could take out class action lawsuits against governments that renege on their promises, now that might focus a few minds!

Mark Twain. No, you can't vote for him.

It was Mark Twain who said, "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it," and plenty other people have paraphrased him over the years; Emma Goldman and Ken Livingstone to name but two. For about 70% of us, it is probably true that voting makes no difference but come 7th May it is imperative that we all go out and vote, vote for whoever, be it Conservative, Labour or Monster Raving Loony Party. Because it's like the lottery; if you don't buy a lottery ticket you can't win a prize. If you don't vote you can't really complain about what you get, but if you do...