Check out this article:
What's 'waste'?
I can't really say it better than that. Also, it is late and i want to get this out before the big day.
it is another reason I'm not voting Tory.
If it convinces you not to, or gives you ammo to persuade someone else not to, I'll be happy.
I am not voting Tory.
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Reason seven
Cameron is on record saying in February that intruders “leave their human rights outside”. On the surface, this looks like 'tough talk' but to me what he seems to be saying is that a home owner has a licence to be judge, jury and executioner on anyone who comes on their property without permission. Does this include the postman who foolishly thinks that, because the door was open, it's okay to leave a parcel on the kitchen table? Or the girl breaking in, due to being chased by an attacker, looking for nearby refuge?
A charged murder suspect still has rights - a right to defend himself in court, a right to trial by jury, etc. Why are these rights left at the door if you're a thief stealing a DVD player? A home owner has a right to use 'reasonable force'. This right protects him, but it also protects the postman and the vulnerable girl. This is a good thing.
This is not about a specific Tory policy outlined in their manifesto, but it exposes their attitude. The Tories are about the protection of the individual. That could be a good thing if it wasn't so often at the expense of other individuals.
You only have to read this Johann Hari article to see this attitude in action.
I cannot vote for a party that thinks and acts in such ways.
I cannot vote Tory.
A charged murder suspect still has rights - a right to defend himself in court, a right to trial by jury, etc. Why are these rights left at the door if you're a thief stealing a DVD player? A home owner has a right to use 'reasonable force'. This right protects him, but it also protects the postman and the vulnerable girl. This is a good thing.
This is not about a specific Tory policy outlined in their manifesto, but it exposes their attitude. The Tories are about the protection of the individual. That could be a good thing if it wasn't so often at the expense of other individuals.
You only have to read this Johann Hari article to see this attitude in action.
I cannot vote for a party that thinks and acts in such ways.
I cannot vote Tory.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Reason six
In the Tories' manifesto, they say they would "recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system ... making 4 million couples up to £150 per year better off".
This, along with the Tories' proposed reform of inheritance tax (which will make the richest ever richer), rewards those that fit with the Conservative idea of they might call 'people like us'. At the same time, it penalises those that do not fit that mould, 'people not like us'. But this is not the only reason I am not in favour of it.
What they are trying to do is promote marriage as the best way to form a family unit and raise children. It does the exact opposite of this: it cheapens it. People will not get married out of love, or commitment to another human being, but for cash. When people are accused of marrying for money that money won't just come out of the rich partner's bank account, it'll also come from the tax payer.
Also, this proposed tax break gives unhappily married people in loveless relationships an incentive to stay married, against their better judgment.
And if Cameron is so convinced that a stable family unit is best served by a married mother and father, why does he need to promote it with a money incentive? Isn't marriage a good in itself, Dave?
This policy is a message to single mothers, to single fathers, to couples that have chosen to not marry: the Tories think you should be married. They see you not being married to the father or mother of your child as a problem to be solved. They regard your family unit to be a broken family, perhaps a family contributing to our so-called 'broken society' in so-called 'broken Britain' - a phrase that owes its memorable-ness more to its alliteration than to any actual evidence or argument.
I say that tax breaks for the married is a slap in the face to anyone who doesn't comply with Cameron's utopian family unit.
I say that if any tax cut can be afforded at a time when the deficit is as large as it is it should not be used to celebrate something as arbitrary as people's decision to marry (or to punish someone for deciding for not marrying).
I say that if Britain is broken then funds should be used on fixing it by improving healthcare, education and policing - instead of diverting some of those funds to people who happen to have got hitched.
I'm not in favour of this policy.
I'm not voting Tory.
This, along with the Tories' proposed reform of inheritance tax (which will make the richest ever richer), rewards those that fit with the Conservative idea of they might call 'people like us'. At the same time, it penalises those that do not fit that mould, 'people not like us'. But this is not the only reason I am not in favour of it.
What they are trying to do is promote marriage as the best way to form a family unit and raise children. It does the exact opposite of this: it cheapens it. People will not get married out of love, or commitment to another human being, but for cash. When people are accused of marrying for money that money won't just come out of the rich partner's bank account, it'll also come from the tax payer.
Also, this proposed tax break gives unhappily married people in loveless relationships an incentive to stay married, against their better judgment.
And if Cameron is so convinced that a stable family unit is best served by a married mother and father, why does he need to promote it with a money incentive? Isn't marriage a good in itself, Dave?
This policy is a message to single mothers, to single fathers, to couples that have chosen to not marry: the Tories think you should be married. They see you not being married to the father or mother of your child as a problem to be solved. They regard your family unit to be a broken family, perhaps a family contributing to our so-called 'broken society' in so-called 'broken Britain' - a phrase that owes its memorable-ness more to its alliteration than to any actual evidence or argument.
I say that tax breaks for the married is a slap in the face to anyone who doesn't comply with Cameron's utopian family unit.
I say that if any tax cut can be afforded at a time when the deficit is as large as it is it should not be used to celebrate something as arbitrary as people's decision to marry (or to punish someone for deciding for not marrying).
I say that if Britain is broken then funds should be used on fixing it by improving healthcare, education and policing - instead of diverting some of those funds to people who happen to have got hitched.
I'm not in favour of this policy.
I'm not voting Tory.
Friday, 30 April 2010
The Guardian newspaper is for the Lib Dems
Read their editorial here.
In this article the Guardian spell out their reasons for their supporting the Liberal Democrats, whilst arguing that a tactical vote in certain marginal seats for Labour would be beneficial.
Beneficial for what? In the main, for a country whose Parliament more accurately represents the beliefs, wishes and ideas of the electorate. This kind of Parliament can only be achieved if the Tories - who explicitly oppose the necessary electoral reform - do not win this General Election.
Read the article. I am almost certainly going to vote in line with the ideas set out in it.
The Guardian advise strongly to vote for Liberal Democrats, but even stronger still they advise against a vote for the Conservative Party.
I am not voting Tory.
In this article the Guardian spell out their reasons for their supporting the Liberal Democrats, whilst arguing that a tactical vote in certain marginal seats for Labour would be beneficial.
Beneficial for what? In the main, for a country whose Parliament more accurately represents the beliefs, wishes and ideas of the electorate. This kind of Parliament can only be achieved if the Tories - who explicitly oppose the necessary electoral reform - do not win this General Election.
Read the article. I am almost certainly going to vote in line with the ideas set out in it.
The Guardian advise strongly to vote for Liberal Democrats, but even stronger still they advise against a vote for the Conservative Party.
I am not voting Tory.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Reason five
Rupert Murdoch is a malevolent force on British life.
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp are backing the Tories.
That, in short, is reason enough not to vote for them.
The Sun, a newspaper owned by Murdoch's News Corp, has correctly predicted (and campaigned on behalf of) the winner of the general election in the UK since Thatcher's win in 1979.
As was beautifully explained by David Yelland's article in the Guardian earlier this week, that might not happen this time around.
You only have to look at the newspapers' coverage before and after Clegg's success in the first televised debate to see that there has been a dramatic shift in the way this election is going. How permanent or lasting that shift is still unknown, but with each passing day, the shift seems a greater influence on our country's political landscape. As a consequence, the national press is going crazy. The right-wing and Murdoch-owned press have turned their attack from the incumbent Labour party and turned it on the once-thought insignificant Lib Dems. They are panicking. The left don't seem to have a clue either. Should they stick with Brown or go with new boy Clegg instead?
I still don't know who to vote for. My mind is not made up. What I do know is that for any press organisation to presume they decide who wins an election is a sorry state for affairs. That Murdoch's son and a former Sun editor can deem it appropriate to angrily burst into the Independent's offices just because that newspaper advertised that the electorate decide the outcome and not Rupert is at first funny and then anger inducing. Link.
Murdoch backed Cameron. The public like Clegg, see him as the bringer of change. Murdoch loses it. I'm pretty happy about it. Let's hope Murdoch - I mean Cameron - loses the election, too.
I'm not voting how Murdoch wants me to.
I'm not voting Tory.
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp are backing the Tories.
That, in short, is reason enough not to vote for them.
The Sun, a newspaper owned by Murdoch's News Corp, has correctly predicted (and campaigned on behalf of) the winner of the general election in the UK since Thatcher's win in 1979.
As was beautifully explained by David Yelland's article in the Guardian earlier this week, that might not happen this time around.
You only have to look at the newspapers' coverage before and after Clegg's success in the first televised debate to see that there has been a dramatic shift in the way this election is going. How permanent or lasting that shift is still unknown, but with each passing day, the shift seems a greater influence on our country's political landscape. As a consequence, the national press is going crazy. The right-wing and Murdoch-owned press have turned their attack from the incumbent Labour party and turned it on the once-thought insignificant Lib Dems. They are panicking. The left don't seem to have a clue either. Should they stick with Brown or go with new boy Clegg instead?
I still don't know who to vote for. My mind is not made up. What I do know is that for any press organisation to presume they decide who wins an election is a sorry state for affairs. That Murdoch's son and a former Sun editor can deem it appropriate to angrily burst into the Independent's offices just because that newspaper advertised that the electorate decide the outcome and not Rupert is at first funny and then anger inducing. Link.
Murdoch backed Cameron. The public like Clegg, see him as the bringer of change. Murdoch loses it. I'm pretty happy about it. Let's hope Murdoch - I mean Cameron - loses the election, too.
I'm not voting how Murdoch wants me to.
I'm not voting Tory.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Reason four
It makes sense for a country that puts so much emphasis on the leaders of the three largest parties that they have three nationally televised debates to have an electoral system to match. I can't vote for Cameron, Clegg or Brown. I can only vote for my local MP, or the candidates running against her. If these and other leaders are asking for my vote I should be able to give it to them.
When I look at the candidates' leaflets and the blurb on their sites, they speak of local communities, local crime rates, local A&E departments, local transport. When I watch the debates on TV, they argue about immigration, nuclear weapons, the Pope coming to visit - in short national issues. Both these sets of issues are important, but I only have one vote with which to express my wishes. If the local candidates contradict with what the leader has said, what do I do? Indeed, where I live in London, neighbouring local MPs from the same party disagree on key issues, from Iraq to nuclear power.
I should be able to vote for a government and there manifesto and a local representative.
In 2005 the Lib Dems won 9.6% of the seats in the House of Commons, despite having 22.1% of the popular vote.
Labour had only 35.3% vote but secured 55.2% of the seats.
The Tories won 30.7% of the seats with 32.3 % of the votes.
The Tories had over three times as many seats as the Lib Dems, depite only having 10% more of the vote share.
Unsurprisingly, the Lib Dems are for reform of the electoral system. The Tories are against.
I am keen for my vote to count, regardless of whether I live in a safe or a marginal constituency. And I want the party with the most votes to lead the country. Under the current system it is mathematically possible for a winning party to come a comfortable second in the popular vote.
I am still not sure who I will vote for. The Lib Dems having been pushing for proportional representation for years, so they are a contender because of that alone. Labour have recently been calling for a possible reform that goes some of the way, but that may be criticised as the actions of desperate outgoing government. But that they are willing to do it is still a plus. The minor parties that have a decent level of voters have little or no representation because their supporters don't happen to live in the same area, so they are likely to be reform.
But the Tories are against it. The Tories are happy for my vote against a 'safe' MP to go unnoticed.
Therefore I am not voting Tory.
When I look at the candidates' leaflets and the blurb on their sites, they speak of local communities, local crime rates, local A&E departments, local transport. When I watch the debates on TV, they argue about immigration, nuclear weapons, the Pope coming to visit - in short national issues. Both these sets of issues are important, but I only have one vote with which to express my wishes. If the local candidates contradict with what the leader has said, what do I do? Indeed, where I live in London, neighbouring local MPs from the same party disagree on key issues, from Iraq to nuclear power.
I should be able to vote for a government and there manifesto and a local representative.
In 2005 the Lib Dems won 9.6% of the seats in the House of Commons, despite having 22.1% of the popular vote.
Labour had only 35.3% vote but secured 55.2% of the seats.
The Tories won 30.7% of the seats with 32.3 % of the votes.
The Tories had over three times as many seats as the Lib Dems, depite only having 10% more of the vote share.
Unsurprisingly, the Lib Dems are for reform of the electoral system. The Tories are against.
I am keen for my vote to count, regardless of whether I live in a safe or a marginal constituency. And I want the party with the most votes to lead the country. Under the current system it is mathematically possible for a winning party to come a comfortable second in the popular vote.
I am still not sure who I will vote for. The Lib Dems having been pushing for proportional representation for years, so they are a contender because of that alone. Labour have recently been calling for a possible reform that goes some of the way, but that may be criticised as the actions of desperate outgoing government. But that they are willing to do it is still a plus. The minor parties that have a decent level of voters have little or no representation because their supporters don't happen to live in the same area, so they are likely to be reform.
But the Tories are against it. The Tories are happy for my vote against a 'safe' MP to go unnoticed.
Therefore I am not voting Tory.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Reason three
Reason three comes in two parts. it stems from a quote I read recently.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams
In this interview with the Guardian, David Cameron argues that a vote for Liberal Democrats is a sure way of getting stuck with labour.
http://tinyurl.com/y6t8ay8
It's nothing more than a passing comment in the article, but it is worth looking at.
This is a classic argument of the desperate. Brown might've used the same line if Cameron hadn't got there first.
A vote for the Liberal Democrats has often been perceived as a 'wasted vote'. Indeed, a vote for third parties/candidates in other countries' elections is often seen as such too. But it isn't. It is a genuine, positive, realistic alternative. And people often vote for them in their millions.
The cliched counter-argument is that the only wasted vote is the unused one. It's an argument used so often that it's almost not worth saying anymore. And when looking at the percentage of the electorate that didn't vote in 2005 it's clearly not an argument that's very persuasive.
So I'll present another. It is obvious, but it's worth doing so anyway: rather than being a vote for Labour, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Lib Dems. Just as a vote for the Tories is a vote for the Tories. And a Labour vote is for Labour. If someone voted for the BNP purely because they were sick of the three main parties, you'd dismiss them as an idiot. And rightly so.
By appealing for those sick of Labour to vote for Tory rather than Lib Dem purely because a Lib Dem vote is a waste, he is appealing to people's erroneous thinking.
EXAMPLE: At festivals there are several stages; as a consequence, the acts that you want to see may clash. You have to decide who you want to see most. you can't see everyone. it gets even more complicated if you're in a group and you wish to stay together. One time, a friend said, 'let's go see BAND A!' to which a majority responded positively. I wanted to see BAND B, but kept quiet. I was young, new to the group and was anxious to make and keep friends. After BAND A's performance I said that it wasn't to my taste and that seeing BAND B might've been preferable. I was astounded to find that most of the group agreed with me, and that going to see BAND A was the worst idea of the weekend. I regret it to this day that I did not speak out sooner. No way am I doing that in the ballot booth.
So that's part one.
Part two. If Cameron had the courage of his convictions he wouldn't have to do anything besides point out his policies and argue for them clearly, offering criticisms of his opponents' ideas along the way. If he was the right man for the job he would have set out a more detailed manifesto. Instead, he's decided that 'change' is all that's needed, and that since he's the leader of the second largest party he is entitled to the premiership. Wrong. Cameron has as much of a monopoly on 'change' as I do.
If Cameron truly had policies that were fleshed out and that would appeal to the electorate, he would have done better in the debate last Thursday. Forget the colours of ties, or the leaders' comfort on camera. Those things play their part, but what keeps on coming up is that Clegg put forward his policies. And people liked the sound of them. Clegg also exposed the idea that Cameron is about change as a hollow one.
Now, this post may come across as a pro-Lib Dem one. It isn't intended to be. What I would do is implore you to vote for the candidate or party whose ideas match your own. I decided to start this blog in part because I was worried that those wanting to shake up things would be anxious to get rid of the current lot - so anxious that they would see a vote for the Tories as the only viable alternative. Well, they aren't.
This election is the first one since the explosion in social networking on the internet. It is easier than ever to find out what others think about things, politics or otherwise. More importantly, it's easier to find out what you think. As a consequence, it's harder to defend the kind of tactical voting that Cameron seems to be advocating. The tactical voter tries to second guess what everyone else thinks and usually gets it wrong.
Don't vote for change, vote for a party.
Don't try to back the winning horse. Sod the horse. There is no horse.
Think for yourself. Vote for yourself.
That Cameron is attempting to convince you to do otherwise exposes him as a coward.
I won't vote for a coward.
I won't vote for a Tory.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams
In this interview with the Guardian, David Cameron argues that a vote for Liberal Democrats is a sure way of getting stuck with labour.
http://tinyurl.com/y6t8ay8
It's nothing more than a passing comment in the article, but it is worth looking at.
This is a classic argument of the desperate. Brown might've used the same line if Cameron hadn't got there first.
A vote for the Liberal Democrats has often been perceived as a 'wasted vote'. Indeed, a vote for third parties/candidates in other countries' elections is often seen as such too. But it isn't. It is a genuine, positive, realistic alternative. And people often vote for them in their millions.
The cliched counter-argument is that the only wasted vote is the unused one. It's an argument used so often that it's almost not worth saying anymore. And when looking at the percentage of the electorate that didn't vote in 2005 it's clearly not an argument that's very persuasive.
So I'll present another. It is obvious, but it's worth doing so anyway: rather than being a vote for Labour, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Lib Dems. Just as a vote for the Tories is a vote for the Tories. And a Labour vote is for Labour. If someone voted for the BNP purely because they were sick of the three main parties, you'd dismiss them as an idiot. And rightly so.
By appealing for those sick of Labour to vote for Tory rather than Lib Dem purely because a Lib Dem vote is a waste, he is appealing to people's erroneous thinking.
EXAMPLE: At festivals there are several stages; as a consequence, the acts that you want to see may clash. You have to decide who you want to see most. you can't see everyone. it gets even more complicated if you're in a group and you wish to stay together. One time, a friend said, 'let's go see BAND A!' to which a majority responded positively. I wanted to see BAND B, but kept quiet. I was young, new to the group and was anxious to make and keep friends. After BAND A's performance I said that it wasn't to my taste and that seeing BAND B might've been preferable. I was astounded to find that most of the group agreed with me, and that going to see BAND A was the worst idea of the weekend. I regret it to this day that I did not speak out sooner. No way am I doing that in the ballot booth.
So that's part one.
Part two. If Cameron had the courage of his convictions he wouldn't have to do anything besides point out his policies and argue for them clearly, offering criticisms of his opponents' ideas along the way. If he was the right man for the job he would have set out a more detailed manifesto. Instead, he's decided that 'change' is all that's needed, and that since he's the leader of the second largest party he is entitled to the premiership. Wrong. Cameron has as much of a monopoly on 'change' as I do.
If Cameron truly had policies that were fleshed out and that would appeal to the electorate, he would have done better in the debate last Thursday. Forget the colours of ties, or the leaders' comfort on camera. Those things play their part, but what keeps on coming up is that Clegg put forward his policies. And people liked the sound of them. Clegg also exposed the idea that Cameron is about change as a hollow one.
Now, this post may come across as a pro-Lib Dem one. It isn't intended to be. What I would do is implore you to vote for the candidate or party whose ideas match your own. I decided to start this blog in part because I was worried that those wanting to shake up things would be anxious to get rid of the current lot - so anxious that they would see a vote for the Tories as the only viable alternative. Well, they aren't.
This election is the first one since the explosion in social networking on the internet. It is easier than ever to find out what others think about things, politics or otherwise. More importantly, it's easier to find out what you think. As a consequence, it's harder to defend the kind of tactical voting that Cameron seems to be advocating. The tactical voter tries to second guess what everyone else thinks and usually gets it wrong.
Don't vote for change, vote for a party.
Don't try to back the winning horse. Sod the horse. There is no horse.
Think for yourself. Vote for yourself.
That Cameron is attempting to convince you to do otherwise exposes him as a coward.
I won't vote for a coward.
I won't vote for a Tory.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Reason two
Chris Grayling has said that he thinks there is a difference between a gay couple being turned away from a hotel and a gay couple being turned away from a B&B that is the proprietor's own home. There isn't. Both the hotel and the B&B are businesses. They are businesses that exchange goods and services for money. As such, they have to obey all the rules that any other business must obey. One of those rules is that no one should be refused services because of their sexual orientation.
Now, of course, opposing parties have used this clanger of Grayling's, the shadow home secretary no less, to accuse the Tories of still being the 'nasty party' and that they're one way when the cameras are on and another way when the cameras are off.
As Simon Schama put it most eloquently on the most recent edition of BBC's Question Time, this isn't evidence of the Tories being politically correct shells with an odious homophobic goo inside (these are my terms, not Schamas), it just exposes a serious lack of judgment and a misunderstanding of the law.
The shadow home secretary, or any MP, should see that it is wrong to refuse a service to someone just because they do something that is quite legal that you happen to find (morally or otherwise) wrong. If your religious conviction hinders you from performing your duties as the owner of a B&B the solution isn't to turn away homosexuals, it is to find a different line of work.
That Grayling doesn't understand this means that he is not fit to serve as Home Secretary. That Cameron doesn't seem to think this warrants a sacking or a demand for resignation means he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Grayling has apologised for offence he may have caused. I'm not offended, Mr Grayling. I'm just of the mind that you think that it's okay to turn away gay people purely on the basis that the service they are willing to pay good money for happens to be in someone's spare room, and as a consequence are either an idiot who doesn't understand the law or a homophobe and are therefore unfit for government.
Grayling has since kept a low profile. I suggest a lower one, out of politics.
I'm not voting Tory.
Now, of course, opposing parties have used this clanger of Grayling's, the shadow home secretary no less, to accuse the Tories of still being the 'nasty party' and that they're one way when the cameras are on and another way when the cameras are off.
As Simon Schama put it most eloquently on the most recent edition of BBC's Question Time, this isn't evidence of the Tories being politically correct shells with an odious homophobic goo inside (these are my terms, not Schamas), it just exposes a serious lack of judgment and a misunderstanding of the law.
The shadow home secretary, or any MP, should see that it is wrong to refuse a service to someone just because they do something that is quite legal that you happen to find (morally or otherwise) wrong. If your religious conviction hinders you from performing your duties as the owner of a B&B the solution isn't to turn away homosexuals, it is to find a different line of work.
That Grayling doesn't understand this means that he is not fit to serve as Home Secretary. That Cameron doesn't seem to think this warrants a sacking or a demand for resignation means he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Grayling has apologised for offence he may have caused. I'm not offended, Mr Grayling. I'm just of the mind that you think that it's okay to turn away gay people purely on the basis that the service they are willing to pay good money for happens to be in someone's spare room, and as a consequence are either an idiot who doesn't understand the law or a homophobe and are therefore unfit for government.
Grayling has since kept a low profile. I suggest a lower one, out of politics.
I'm not voting Tory.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Reason one
David Cameron believes the ban on fox hunting was "a mistake".
Click on this link to read what Cameron said on Nicky Campbell's BBC Radio 5 show:
Nicky Campbell and David Cameron on 5 Live
I am against fox hunting. I do not believe that tracking, chasing and killing an exhausted fox using countless horses and hounds for sport or pest control is a good use of anyone's time. It is morally indefensible to treat any animal in such a way.
The defence that Cameron gives would be suitable if the subject was a ban on country walks or riding horses. Take away the killing of an animal and no one has a problem with people riding in large groups through the hills and valleys. Give some rational defence of the element which is actually banned, Mr Cameron.
It can be argued that any method of killing a fox is cruel. But the difference between the banned method and other methods is necessity. If population control is necessary so be it. But dressing in red coats is not necessary; Exhausting an animal through chasing is not necessary; it being torn to pieces by hounds is not necessary. These elements, the elements that those against fox hunting find most distasteful, are done in the name of blood thirst.
A nice walk or ride in the country is no argument for the needlessly cruel death of any animal. David Cameron thinks it is.
Pest control is no argument for the needlessly cruel death of an animal. David Cameron thinks it is.
I'm not voting Tory.
Click on this link to read what Cameron said on Nicky Campbell's BBC Radio 5 show:
Nicky Campbell and David Cameron on 5 Live
I am against fox hunting. I do not believe that tracking, chasing and killing an exhausted fox using countless horses and hounds for sport or pest control is a good use of anyone's time. It is morally indefensible to treat any animal in such a way.
The defence that Cameron gives would be suitable if the subject was a ban on country walks or riding horses. Take away the killing of an animal and no one has a problem with people riding in large groups through the hills and valleys. Give some rational defence of the element which is actually banned, Mr Cameron.
It can be argued that any method of killing a fox is cruel. But the difference between the banned method and other methods is necessity. If population control is necessary so be it. But dressing in red coats is not necessary; Exhausting an animal through chasing is not necessary; it being torn to pieces by hounds is not necessary. These elements, the elements that those against fox hunting find most distasteful, are done in the name of blood thirst.
A nice walk or ride in the country is no argument for the needlessly cruel death of any animal. David Cameron thinks it is.
Pest control is no argument for the needlessly cruel death of an animal. David Cameron thinks it is.
I'm not voting Tory.
What this blog is about
I'm not voting Tory.
Recently, articles that have appeared in the press and attitudes amongst people I have spoken to suggest that the forthcoming election is in the bag for the Conservtive Party. I have heard it from both their supporters and detracters alike.
I don't think it is. I believe that it will be decided on election day, 6th May, and not before.
I also hope that they do not win.
Each day leading up to the election I hope to put forward one clear reason why I will not be voting Tory. I hope that those reading this blog will be either persuaded not to vote for them or reminded of why they know they've believed they would not do so but can't remember why.
I have not yet decided who I will be voting for, but it will not be the Conservatives under any circumstances. I believe that the other main parties - Labour and the Liberal Democrats - have something to offer. I also believe that some of the local independent candidates are worth considering, as well as single issue parties and other smaller parties, such as the Greens.
Additionally, I am aware of arguments for not voting or for spoiling ballot papers for various reasons. There are those arguments to consider too. But when I look at the Conservatives, when I look at their track record and their policies, when I learn of their voting habits in the House of Commons, when I hear them speak on programmes such as Question Time BBC 1 or the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4, I can only come to the conclusion that I disagree with them.
As a consequence, I am not voting Tory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)