May 1, 2010 1 Comment
I felt Gordon Brown played a blinder on Thursday, that he was more able to articulate the plans to pick up the economy and not let it slide into a grey hole as would the Tories with their ideological cuts to services. GB’s position seemed far more considered, Cameron was a little too immature on the subject, way out of his depth, and Clegg – not his usual self – appealed to niceties and low, hypocritical anti-politics stereotypes – that will eventually come to shoot him in the foot in event of a hung parliament, and we’d all do well to remember.
In spite of this, the leader debates were a game of politics, swiping statements,base argument, and GB did his best to stop it from being a case of who can be the rudest to who. Further, as they were the most popular political events on the calendar before the election, it might have been more sensible to curb the illusion that it was an individual, and not a party, that we are going to vote for. This will be bad for the less confident voter, but those of us more alert to the ins and outs (warts and all) of these things would do better than to decide who to vote for on these debates – for me they did little to clarify what the parties stood for and how one man could undercut the man to his left or right. Surely vote for the party, not the individual – for this is not a road mature British politics should go down, we’ll leave that to the x-factor politics of the US.
We’ve all seen shifts in direction for the labour party, but whether we like that or not they did well not to follow the line in Europe and keep the economy afloat as best as possible with easing measures and capital injections. On a wider note for the economy, something that is a small expense, but could potentially be a great benefit to young people growing up during economic austerity is the child trust fund, which the lib dems plan to scrap in favour of smaller classrooms.
As for migration, labour surely has to change the tune its whistling, but we are not a party of xenophobes. I personally don’t feel amnesties promote illegal immigration, they are a solution to the wicked issue of illegal immigrants forced to lurk among the shadows, but I don’t see it at all as in conflict with the party’s moral compass, nor my own, which is why I think these things might better be campaigned for within the party of fairness (we have solid border controls, which don’t run contrary to my socialist principles at all, in fact quite the opposite; it is about who provides the ideology behind the borders, and if they are to just, they will be best to observe and safeguard migrants who might otherwise get lost in the ether, opening themselves to a whole host of unpalatable occurrences and wage depressions from exploitative criminals, who also operate from outside regulation).
That is why the labour party should get your vote – unlike what Sunny or the Guardian are saying – because they are the party of fairness, they are the party that is committed to saving the economy for the majority and not on account of an ideology, and because to vote lib dems is to implicitly say to the right wing of the labour party (who inform negative rhetoric) you win! I for one am not prepared to do that.