How I Would Vote

This blog...it still exists ?  Any road...

So, yeah, I don't have a vote in US elections. The whys & wherefores, the (in)justice in denying the vast majority of the global population a say in the governance of a country that acts as defacto ruler of the entire planet, never mind those within the US itself denied a vote, aside...

Who would I vote for in the US general election for President ?

I previously (aeons ago now) discussed having to choose between that theocratic loon Ted Cruz & fascist clown Donald Trump. And, despite some (I think, deserved) criticism of Bernie Sanders, anyone who's read what I've written here, or on Twitter, probably wouldn't be surprised to know that I was leaning towards Bernie Sanders. But...he didn't win.*

Gun to my head, Donald versus Hillary, was always going to be Hillary, Hillary the inevitable one, Hillary 'Her Time Has Come' Clinton, Hillary 'Guess it's time we elected a woman President, so why not her?' Clinton...Vomit !

---

I'd like to see more third-party options & support in the US generally (bring on AV voting & abolition of the electoral college), but given a) The US's ridiculously archaic first-past-the-post system, and b) what an utter incompetent maniac Trump is/would be, I'd go along with most Bernie-leaning pundits (Sam Seders of the world, say), and agree that any responsible liberal-leaning voter in a so-called 'swing state' has to vote for Hillary, painful & unpleasant as it may/would be. 'Has to' as in, it's what I would do, what I would advise, what I would expect from anyone with any concern for the continuation of the republic whatsoever; You want to just burn the whole system down to the ground, and gamble on starting over, well I get that too, but...I kinda think yer nuts...

I've only recently decided what I would do, if I were voting in a non-swing state, which is a far more common scenario in a country so politically polarised, and with such corrupt partisan dominance of statehouses (which control electoral boundaries) as the United States.  And...

I'd write in Bernie Sanders.

Why ?

Firstly, obviously, he came far closer to addressing the economic, and to a lesser degree, environmental concerns, that are way at the top of my list for what should be the priorities of this election.

No, I don't dismiss ISIS or Islamic Extremism generally, Yes, I have concerns about the rise & regional hegemony of the PRC, Yes, I even have some concerns about Russia under Putin, though I will maintain that that threat is far overstated, and has far more to do with the Russophobic attitude of Western politicians who grew up as children of the Cold War than anything else. But, after decades of Reaganomics, of Thatcherite hyper-capitalistic insanity, I consider wealth- & income-inequality far greater concerns**, never mind the fact that in our pursuit of infinite economic expansion, on a planet of very finite resources, we are destroying the ability of the planet to sustain human life !

Secondly, Yes it would be a protest-vote. Unfollow me or block me on Twitter if you must Hill-bots, but the way the DNC planned for an inevitable coronation of HRC far in advance of the primaries, and their obvious bias & manipulations against Bernie Sanders disgust me.

I obviously would consider (in any election) a third-party vote, but in this specific case, I feel that writing in Bernie's name would be the only option (for me), because it is the only unambiguous way to protest, the only way that cannot possibly be misinterpreted.

A vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, could just mean that you like the Libertarians, agree with the Greens, take seriously either of those (IMO) completely unserious candidates. A vote for Donald Trump could mean that you are protesting against a corrupt establishment, or equally, that you are one of the fringier alt-right contingent who identity with white nationalism, favouring swastika-themed avatars and Neo-Nazi numerical code (88, asf.) in social media, alongside jokes about gassing Jews... And, staying home, could just mean that you couldn't get time off work, or, and I'm sure this will be mentioned over and over again, that you're a lazy millennial, who just couldn't be arsed...

Writing in Bernie's name on the other hand says:

• This is a vote you otherwise could have had
• I reject utterly the DNC's handling of the primaries
• I reject the establishment candidate you foisted upon the party (in a year of anti-establishment frustration/desperation) and upon the country (despite her huge national unpopularity)
• I reject Bernie's endorsement of same (Yes, a middle finger, a direct FU to Bernie himself)
• I want to send a message that, if you somehow lose to Donald Trump...(to Don-ald f'ing TRUMP...) it is 100% on you. You being the DNC. You being Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. You being that lifelong Goldwater girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton herself.

I won't get to make even that meagre protest, even that pathetic act of resistance against the elites that are strangling our middle classes, killing our poor, destroying our entire planet in the name of putting infinite growth and the profit of billionaires ahead of all other concerns, all other actual humans...All I can do is, for the record, speak my mind here, on Twitter, elsewhere on social media. It's almost certainly all for nowt, but I somehow feel an obligation to exercise my voice in place of that vote where it's otherwise denied.



* Voter-rolls purged, polling-places closed, debates scheduled on holidays, against major sporting-events, efforts to limit independents registering as Democrats, proclaiming Hillary's victory whilst the single largest state had yet to vote.....I'm not going to go here into all the ways one could argue against whether Hillary actually...or fairly won...

** Plutocracy and concentration of wealth, also being inherent corrupting factors in a democracy, inherent threats to the sustainability or integrity of Democracy itself.

First Caroline Lucas, now Paddy Ashdown

Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, is calling for the progressive forces in British politics not to retreat into post-election tribalism but to work together to try to agree a broad policy agenda for a future non-Tory government.

Ashdown is the most senior politician on the centre-left since the election to call for political cooperation among progressive forces, a move that would effectively end Nick Clegg’s policy of placing the Liberal Democrats politically equidistant between the main two parties.

Ashdown suggests the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens, along with others interested in reform, should set up a convention to discuss a joint progressive agenda. He stressed Labour and the Lib Dems had to maintain their independence, and he was not in favour of electoral pacts on seats, or any kind of formal organisational cooperation.

Ashdown, who was appointed by Clegg to be the Liberal Democrats’ election co-ordinator, said: “I think there is a case for creating a framework before the European referendum where the progressive forces come together.”

He told the Guardian it was time to end the fractures on the left: “As we – all of us on the left and centre-left – survey the wreckage around us after the last election, we should ask ourselves this question: is this the moment for us to retreat into tribalism, as we always do? My answer to that question is ‘no’.

“There is much we disagree about, but there is more that we agree on. The environment, civil liberties, internationalism; how to build a strong economy within the context of a fair society; how to devolve power to our nations and communities in a way which preserves our national unity, not threatens it; the need to tackle the intolerable gap of inequality which will soon threaten our social cohesion as well as our economic success. 

“Above all how, by working sensibly together where we are able to, we can save Britain from a government which, whatever David Cameron’s instincts, is now increasingly driven by its right wing who are hell bent on policies which will threaten our social cohesion, our national unity, our place in Europe and our standing in the wider world.”

Ashdown said he accepted Labour’s first instinct would be to return to tribalism, especially during the current leadership election “but they will soon realise that the old tribalism will not solve their problems”

Will they now ?  Hmm, why am I sceptical ?

Ashdown himself as Liberal Democrat leader in 1995 abandoned political equidistance, putting his party explicitly to the left, but then found his plan for deeper Labour-Liberal Democrat cooperation stalled when Tony Blair won an unexpectedly massive Commons majority in 1997.

There's the rub.  Tony didn't need the Lib-Dems for power, and why would he share it ?  Just as the Tories, who spent the last five years sharing government with Paddy's own party, suddenly want nothing to do with them now they can rule alone.

Because most politicians want power.  Even if they enter politics with the best of intentions, they eventually find themselves tempted to water their principles down in the name of winning power -- just a little here, then a little there -- got to get inside the system if you want to effect real change after all...

Caroline Lucas and Ashdown appear to be talking about principles.  They can afford to, with their parties so far removed from any possibility of actual power for a generation at least.  But Labour's still talking about winning elections.  About learning the lesson, of the electorate apparently not buying what they had on offer in the last bid.  Because that's what it's all about: giving people what they wanttelling people what they want to hear, then screwing them over as soon at the election's over.  It's a business, a retail-outfit.  No principles required.

The lesson Labour learnt from the last election is that the only way for the 'Labour' party to win is Tony's way: to be no kind of Labour Party at all.  The brand's socialist roots are ingrained enough that they still feel they have to pretend...for a little longer anyway...In fact, I almost pity them them the way they have to bend this way and that to try to sell the majority of the country on at best a centre-right agenda whilst still trying to convince loyalists that they're of the left really.

Probably Paddy & Caroline's best bet is to just forget Labour as any kind of potential ally.  Try to win over their left-leaning voters, sure.  Establish a progressive coalition with other parties, sure.  But Labour's done with the left.  Once they're they finished with their leadership-campaign, with Corbyn there purely for the symbolism, purely to be publicly rejected, they'll not be looking back again.  'Red Ed' was likely their last bid at trying to win elections while retaining any shred of their roots.

If fact a generation from now, people may forget the reason they were ever called 'Labour' in the first place.  Could be like the 'Liberal Party' in Australia.  Just a label.  Just a historical holdover.  Can they transform themselves sufficiently in the next five years to win an election, can they sufficiently distance themselves from the 'Red' labels ?  Doubt it.  They have to own the right-wing agenda, have confidence in what they're selling.  For now they still seem to think that they can con their traditional supporters that they're one thing, whilst actually being another entirely.  For that, they need a professional liar as leader -- another Tony Blair in fact -- and they don't have one.

Anyway, who cares ?  Get on with your progressive coalition and forget Labour.  If you're in politics for the principles that is.


* Yes, I know I said I was going to shut up about Labour.  And when I started to write this, I didn't intend to talk about them at all, other than historically vis-à-vis Tony.  But then I got carried away...

God Bless the Unofficial Opposition

This is how it's going to be, isn't it ?  Until perhaps Nicola & Alex finally admit to plans for a second referendum.

If we're honest, the stupid naïve nationalism aside, the SNP is the sort of party would-be Labour-voters (and many Greens and some Lib-Dems) were hoping for when they wrote in an 'x' besides the name of a far less credible and/or far more compromised and corrupted party in Westminster.  Thanks to the last-minute desperate fearmongering of Cameron & co., the Union may only have (last year's seemingly now pointless referendum not withstanding) a few years remaining.  But, in the interim, and with the usual slightly-less-right-wing suspects in Westminster politics utterly impotent, Nicola Sturgeon may well be the Union's best defender of traditional social-democratic values.  Alba gu bràth ?

Debate !

Is it just me, or is there not something really weird about seeing Ed on stage, debating the leaders of the nationalist parties (& Greens), while Nick & Dave are nowhere in sight ?  Not sure if the optics are good or bad for Labour, just strange and oddly unbalanced.


Update: And the Telegraph phones in their pre-scripted responses to the debate.

Uh, no.

2015 UK Elections Rap Parody

I just love everything about this:

Even more than this masterpiece:

OT, it seems that Blogger just got that one little bit shittier in terms of locating and posting videos from YouTube.  Used to be, if it couldn't locate the video (which happens a lot), you could hack off the identifier, pick something random, and edit the HTML with the right ID.  Now, that option's gone.  Why ?  WTF is wrong with you Google ?