Some election myths

One week to go before the general election and it might be worth having a look at some of the myths that the campaign has thrown up. The first is the, frankly absurd, notion that David Cameron should be more passionate. There have, in the past been passionate politicians, not least Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, but they were ideological thinkers, they had a clear vision of where they wanted to take the country so of course they were passionate. Nicola Sturgeon shows passion, but what could be more fundamental than her left wing stance on policy and her aspiration for Scottish independence? Cameron, like the other main party leaders, is essentially a technician who doesn’t really want to make fundamental changes, but rather promises to tinker with the system – the economy the welfare state, immigration and security etc. They are, basically plumbers sent for to fix the central heating. Add to this the fact that most One Nation conservatives like Cameron positively oppose the exercise of passion in politics (The great conservative philosopher of the mid twentieth century, Michael Oakeshott, once said that ‘politics should be a conversation, not an argument’) and we can see how nonsensical it is. So seeing Cameron adopt some kind of violent passion looks simply ridiculous. He’d do better doing what he appears best at – being calm and rational. The next myth is still being peddled by the lame duck Labour leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy. This is that a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Conservatives. Tosh. In Scotland if one votes for either Labour or the SNP it is an anti Conservative vote. The two parties will have to work together in parliament and every seat they win between them holds bac k Conservative influence. Labour cannot win an overall majority so it matters little whether seats in Scotland go to the SNP or to Labour. If Murphy hadn’t wasted his time on this ridiculous campaign, he might have prevented the virtual or actual total annihilation of his party. The third is that Nicola Sturgeon is some kind of female version of Genghis Khan. Formidable, fearless and fearsome she may be, but she is not about to hold the UK up to ransom. Like Salmond she is well used to governing as a minority and understands that, whatever positions are taken up in an election campaign, there have to be compromises if one wants to have influence in a hung parliament. Sturgeon and Salmond will find compromise positions, even on Trident (i.e. removing it from Scottish waters) and certainly on devolution. Finally there is the myth that not voting at all is a rational response to the poor state of the political class in the UK. Take away those who won’t vote because they don’t know anything that is going on beyond their front door – who really cares if the abstain it is probably desirable? – and we have the Brand followers. The problem is this. The abstainers say, with some justification, that politicians are damaged goods, cannot be trusted and are not proposing anything really meaningful. OK, that may be so, but it is wrong to say that, whoever gets elected, there will be no discernible difference. There are differences between the parties and every individual who knows anything about their proposals should be able to find at least one reason to support one party rather than another. I think what Brand is saying is that, by voting, we endorse the whole system. That is a legitimate position to take, but it has a fatal flaw. It is this: that we don’t know what the motivation behind abstaining is in each individual case. Is it ignorance, apathy, sheer bloody-mindedness or is it a protest? We know why Brand does not vote, but what about everyone else?