Thursday 5 May 2011

Sorry, Simon Hughes, My MP, I Voted No to AV!

I almost came close to pledging a Yes Vote the day you hurriedly passed me at my slave labour at Bermondsey Underground Station ( where I am confined to an unskilled job not because I am unskilled, but because of all the wrong reasons). Many misguided ordinary people including ethnic minority naturally assume the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) and the Labour Party are pro-ordinary people and pro-fairness hence; the masses often get easily swayed by any cry for fairness by the Lib Dems or Labour.
I must confess that I was until the last minute slightly swayed by the Yes campaign’s argument for a fairer voting system which they claim is found in the AV system, but the cloud of sentiment cleared off my sight once I sat down to compel my mind to a proper dissection of the arguments of both sides. I was probably swayed by the Yes campaign's argument that the current First Pass the Post system encourages job for life for MPs, but on a clearer look,
I find no force in this argument. Although, I share the sentiment against your likes that are life MPs and the culture of hereditary MPs which your political party equally represent, I do not see any correlation between the current system and jobs-for-life-MPs.
The fact that some people must be MPs not because they are popular or competent or even appreciably intelligent (e.g. the Nadine Dorrises of Westminster), but simply because they are connected or anointed by the party leadership or need to be handpicked to creat some outlook of equality of opportunities is a very British undemocratic practice which cannot be remedied by AV. The only remedy lies in practicing democracy to the letter by way of allowing the members of the party and the masses to choose party candidates. Of course, you should know that due to our kind of parliamentary democracy and the role of our manipulative media that people are always going to vote for the party rather than the individuals. Hence, the reason why MPs like yourself and your boss Nick Clegg have jobs for life must be because favoured candidates are imposed rather than elected by member of the political parties.

It is therefore clear that your argument for Yes is as poor,unintelligent and ppintless as a typical Lib Dem's idea or policy( for example, Nick Clegg’s foolish idea and argument for paternity leave period to be extended to the level of maternity leave).
I must assure you that I was also attracted to the Yes vote because I wanted to vote against the band of nasty privileged one-eyed men in government, but at the last minute I decided against making the most hopeless and incompetent nepotism produced politicians in Britain (Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband) appear great by voting yes.

My general stand is simply that all the major parties are in it together when it comes to cheating or deceiving the people and as well as celebrating inequality . Nepotism and all the public service vices are found in all major political parties with none having the moral ground to accuse another of any unfairness.

I am not fooled to accept that any political party that practices nepotism and inequality can ever stand tall enough to preach fairness! In any case, there is no issue of fairness here. It is simply a case of choosing between commonsense and idiocy and I have rightly chosen commonsense!!

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi, I came over from the Sahara Reporters commentary on the recent Nigerian election. I like your post. One question I have is why you are against equal paternity/maternity leave?

John said...

Hi, I just realised I failed to reply to your comment.
I find Mr Clegg's idea entirely hopeless for two main reasons.
Firstly, it is idiotic to suggest that a man should spend the same amount of time off work as a woman who goes through the torment of carrying pregnancy, delivery and nursing. Nothing can be more disgusting than such a suggestion.
Secondly, it is not viable economically, for any serious society thinking about tomorrow, to encourage a couple to take about 1 year each off-work simply because of childbirth. I am sure that no rich and wise nation on earth can afford such a paradisiacal lifestyle. You may wish to know that the current system is already burdensome on the state.
I am not surprised that a man like Mr Clegg who is a product of British nepotism is incompetent. I am mainly surprised that no strong voice has seriously criticised his obvious poor intelligence.

Anonymous said...

how is clegg a product of british nepotism?

'Nothing can be more disgusting than such a suggestion.
Secondly, it is not viable economically, for any serious society thinking about tomorrow, to encourage a couple to take about 1 year each off-work simply because of childbirth. I am sure that no rich and wise nation on earth can afford such a paradisiacal lifestyle. '

the first comment is overly dramatic. are you sure you're just not afraid of being left home with the baby? do you not think after 9 months of 'torment' that the woman may appreciate the man taking care of their child and allowing her to go back to her career as soon as possible?

also sweden encourages 480 days parental leave EQUALLY divided between mother and father. that is roughly 8 months each and they are an economically prosperous country.
http://www.thelocal.se/14022/20080829/

John said...

Hey, I missed out the last comment. Sweden and other Scandinavians are each stupendously rich with little population. Sweden is particularly super rich because it wisely played a neutral during the second world war and made loads of money selling arms to both sides!