Election 2015: Please Give A Shit

It’s election time and it’s already been an entire 5 years since we had the opportunity to vote for that MP who lives where we live and has made our district better? Probably? I don’t really know. Who cares. If you’re like me, you’re a broad stroke voter who only cares about big stuff, like the economy? Maybe? Not enough to really properly learn about how it works, but enough to care if it’s ‘bad’, or better but in a ‘bad’ way. Listen, we’re getting off track!

This is possibly the most interesting election ever. And if that bit of hyperbole doesn’t make you want to read on then go off, watch this, and thanks for playing:

For the purpose of this blog, the relative merits of the political parties don’t matter. Once I’ve bothered to read the manifestos, I will explain who I am and am not voting for and why. But for now, all I want to do is make you care about voting.

A Yougov poll recently revealed that more than 2 million young people like myself will abstain from the vote. So what I want to get across is that you can’t not vote. Not voting is a vote for things to stay the same. You’re leaving your future in the hands of the people that have presumably always voted against your interests. Older people have generally always voted and younger people have generally not given a shit. That’s why so many wonderful pension benefits have been rolled out ahead of the election, and also why student fees have tripled. Why would they act in our interests if we don’t act interested? If you’re not happy, you need to punish them.

Don’t listen to Russell Brand, if you can’t find a party that represents you perfectly then find one that mostly does. This will lead the political discussion in a certain direction and drag everyone with it. If that sounds fanciful then think of how the joke parties of 2010 like UKIP and the Greens are starting to scare everyone because they just might do something in this year’s election. Think of how the SNP are in the process of eradicating the influence of all the English-based parties in Scotland. Think of how the Liberal Democrats went from being plucky no-hopers to real movers in government after just three televised debates where Nick Clegg won us all over.

If you’re European-minded then think of Alexis Tsipras, leader of the Syriza party in Greece. You may have heard of them in the news. Well, this radical political party was founded a mere 11 years ago, and now they are in charge because they rallied the nation’s young voters.

If you’re not European-minded, but are instead historically-minded then just think about the history of the Labour party for a bit…

Not giving a shit leads to things you don’t want. Just as an example, I know several people were alarmed that UKIP ‘won’ the European Parliament elections in Britain. Ask yourself, are you one of the people who didn’t worry about UKIP because you thought that when it came down to it no-one would be crazy enough to vote for them? Well that didn’t happen then and it might not happen now. You’re giving the voters that you disagree with free rein, allowing them to make things better for themselves possibly at your expense.

The whole point of voting is change. That’s why we don’t have mad Kings and Queens who get to capriciously make rules any more. Voting does change things and I hope I’ve given you just a flavour of how quickly real change can happen. The political landscape today is completely different from 2010.

A recent BBC3 programme, An Idiot’s Guide to Politics tried to get to the bottom of why the young don’t vote and came to the conclusion that it’s because politicians lie all the time and we feel that therefore there is no point. While this explanation has the wonderful quality of taking the onus off us, I feel that it is a bit too generous. I personally think it’s because we’re not taught a lot about it in our education, AND that we genuinely don’t give a shit.

Why does the lying politician line not fly with me? Well the fact is that when you and I get older we are going to vote (and we’re more likely to vote Tory), we will suddenly give a shit because we feel it affects us. Not because politicians will become more honest as we age, but simply because we will perceive that politics is affecting us more. It’s a vicious cycle where politicians don’t help out the young because they don’t vote, and the young don’t vote because the politicians don’t help them out.

So let’s talk about this election; what the fuck is going on?

If the polls are anything to go by then there’s barely anything in it between the two major parties: Conservative and Labour. Indicating that we may be in for consecutive hung parliaments and another coalition.

What makes this really juicy is the supporting cast!

With the polls indicating that the Liberal Democrats will accrue a mere 10% of the vote and that the key players are less than certain of their seats, it seems that dreams of a decade of Lib Dem rule spectacularly exploded within 6 months of gaining some superficial power. It’s been so bad that even the offer of free money to every tax payer has not spared them.*

Now that the Lib Dems are not the king-makers they were 5 years ago, what wild cards do we have to think about this year?

The Green party have leapfrogged the Lib Dems in popularity among the young for no apparent reason. It was something to do with them not being allowed on TV with Dave Cameron, even though Dave Cameron really wanted them there, so much so that he threatened to not be on TV any more. Some such bullshit. Anyway, for the time being they have a growing support mainly made up of younger people who have responded to a radical party that offers them real revolutionary change…and amusing viral videos.

The Scottish National Party are predicted to possess the third highest amount of seats. This seems strange for a party that is apparently perpetually locked in a gentleman’s agreement to not vote on issues to do with England. Stranger still, a party that wanted nothing to do with Westminster 6 months ago. But I guess they deserve their luck, as they managed to make the Scottish give a shit about politics and stuff. Even if the shit they gave was to confirm their position as a large county in the north of England.

Finally, we have UKIP, the one you know everything about so I probably don’t need to cover it here.

There are a lot of possibilities here. It’s not just a straightforward Labour versus Conservative punch-up any more! The major parties need to appeal to an electorate they haven’t faced before – a more nuanced electorate. Your vote will really influence the direction of the next 5 years. A vote for these smaller parties reduces the power of the large parties and they will need to find ways to appeal to us again. Anyone who doubts this should think about how the both Conservative and Labour in the aftermath of the European Parliament elections have tried to appeal to UKIP voters rather than dismiss them as fanatical.

We could have:

Conservative – Liberal

Labour – Liberal

Labour – SNP

Labour – Green

Conservative – UKIP

There could be crazy concatenations of three or more parties!

So please young people of Britain, give a shit. The fact is that if anywhere near 2 million extra people voted this summer then things really could change in a weird and unpredictable way. I don’t want to beg you to vote because I want to push an agenda (those blog posts come later). I just want you all to mix things up, keep things interesting, make sure our votes matter, and give a shit.**

*If I were in charge I’d have ingeniously called the raising of the tax allowance to £10,000 a free money pledge

**It’s occurred to me that this ‘give a shit’ thing is turning into a bit of a line, potentially a political line. I’m okay with this.

Can Everyone Please Stop Moaning About These Stupid TV Debates!

This issue has already taken up too much time on the news and I can’t stand it.

David Cameron doesn’t want to be thrown to the lions on TV and get slaughtered by anyone that wants a piece.

This slightly cowardly move clearly does not show him to be the bold, daring, charismatic leader that we may all want, but it also doesn’t make him aloof, uncaring, or stupid.

It is my personal opinion that the leader and the principle opposition should be forced to do a televised debate at every election. These televised debates are a much better advert for politics than Prime Minister’s Questions and they get the young involved. BUT we should never be surprised that the majority party does not want to do them, there are obvious and pragmatic reasons for this. We are basically asking the turkey to vote for Christmas.

Cameron has nothing to gain from these debates. NOTHING. His role will be to stand there and let every other party throw shit at him (hopefully metaphorically). These debates are king-makers and king-breakers, where the charisma of one person for one hour may help you decide whether to vote for that random MP that lives near your house.

Think of how the Liberal Democrats hadn’t had a sniff of power for decades, but on the back of Nick Clegg’s flooring of the main parties in the 2010 debates they have afforded themselves significant influence of government policy.

Think of how Gordon Brown became reduced to a man with a terrible, child-scaring smile by the media.

Think of how Nigel Farage is a man who would be nothing without TV. After spending numerous unglamourous hours on television being condemned as a lizard-faced racist he has managed to build a solid platform for UKIP. He has even managed to wipe the floor with previous debating champion Nick Clegg on the issue of the EU, as well as securing victory in the European Parliament elections for the party you thought everyone hated. All this success is born out of Farage’s ability in front of a camera, and he now leads the party that scares everyone.

If you’re not quite done thinking yet, then you could even think of how the Green party found great popularity for not being allowed on TV with Dave Cameron, an issue that greatly upset him. I count this as the second most bizarre and dull news story of the past year.

What I’m getting at is that yes, it would have been great for him to accept the schedule. It would be better for the electorate, and frankly I think it would have been better for him. We all know he would have wiped the floor with Ed Miliband, anyone that needs evidence of this just needs to watch any replay of PMQs over the past 5 years. Just to cover myself against left-wing retribution, I didn’t mean that he would have won because the coalition has nailed governance and that everything is perfect. Ed Miliband is just shit at debating: you know it, I know it, and he probably knows it.

But Cameron had two options and both were a gamble.

1. DEBATE

Take on the debate and risk being made to look like a moron on TV, whilst simultaneously raising the profile of Labour and other parties.

OR

Take on the debate and boss it

2. CHICKEN OUT

Leave the debate and bet on the fact that if they ’empty chair’ him, that no-one in the world can be bothered to listen to Ed drone on for an hour about how things would obviously be great if he were in charge. I don’t know about you guys but I’m watching for the scrap! It would be a bit boring to watch a fight between one people.

OR

Leave the debate and thanks to the sheer willpower of the news everyone moans about him not being on TV without rest for a month, until the public inevitably pick up sound bites from Ed Miliband’s solo debate from the news and Labour experience a tidal wave of support.

However, ingeniously he went for option number 3. He’s attempted a best of both worlds option by debating every person and their mother on television. 7 parties on stage! 7! Just think, if they all moan about what they would do to make the world perfect for 5 minutes each, then boom, 35 minutes gone. That leaves no time to bully Cameron over the tie he is wearing, or whether he can see #thedress properly.

So listen, feel free to hate Cameron but he did not make a crazy decision designed to insult the electorate. Feel free to think that this move is a comment on his character and that you should not vote for a man that is so camera-shy. You can even feel free to imagine that he tremors at the thought of debating Miliband for the 100^th time. But please recognise that he’s in a terrible position and it’s unnecessarily moany of us and the news to bang on about it for this amount of time.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the next party to rise to power 100% commits to the debates next time round.

Any thoughts or vile hysterical rantings? Please comment below.

Gay Marriage Matters: What To Say To A Homophobe And Why You Shouldn’t Call Them Homophobic

Hello there blogosexuals! How are we? Top stuff!

Never one to miss the opportunity to moan over an issue that appears settled, I have written the next two posts about gay marriage. Part 1 will hopefully serve as a helpful Q & A formatted list of how you should respond to the all too numerous gay equality opposition that exists all over the world, even in liberal Europe. Part 2 will explain why you should give a (non-literal) fuck about the whole issue. But for now, on with the show!

We’re entering the dying throes of the year and our country is different to the one that welcomed 2013. England and Wales have now joined a group of 17 nations that have officially legalised gay marriage and it’s awesome. It’s been a long summer of in-fighting within the often irritable bowels of parliament but the issue has finally been resolved. No matter what happens next I will always be grateful for David Cameron’s tenacity in chasing up the issue at great risk to himself and his party. Who am I? I consider myself one of the vocal members of a largely silent majority that supports equal rights for homosexuals. I myself am not partial to sexy wrestling with the chaps but if it were only gay people that fought for gay rights then nothing would happen. The first part of this blog entry will serve as a reminder of the counter-arguments you might consider employing should you debate someone that opposes gay rights. I don’t hope to add anything to the argument nor do I expect to present it in a more beautiful way than the proper writers that have gone before me. The argument for equality has previously been robustly mounted by countless thoughtful individuals who have had to exhibit far more determination and bravery than I ever will.

“It’s just not natural Dave! That isn’t where you put it!”

Biology has nothing to say about the legal unionising of a couple and it doesn’t say how we morally should behave. The important distinction to make here is that it should not be considered unnatural for gay people to have sex because it won’t result in babies. Sex for pleasure, masturbation, celibacy and condom use are equally unnatural to someone who takes the procreation position. Obviously gay sex and gay relationships are natural or the practice wouldn’t be as ubiquitous as it is. It’s natural for a certain percentage of our population to feel attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. Furthermore, it’s natural for the animal kingdom to produce homosexual groups; at least 1500 animals have been documented to exhibit homosexual behaviour in some way, one of the best examples being rams who commit for life to a specific same-sex partner. It’s also important to realise that marriage these days is a legal union that recognises a commitment between two people, and there’s no biological evidence to suggest that gay people are inferior at loving each other. If anything, when I turn to my favourite copy of heat magazine I am reminded how ineffective the people that our society admires are at maintaining their special union.

If you have a gay couple that have been with each other for their entire lives into old age (often under much more trying circumstances than you or I will ever have to encounter) it’s impossible to conclude that they have a different relationship to everyone else. Man COMMITS FOR LIFE to woman, (wo)man COMMITS FOR LIFE to (wo)man – what difference do you see? From what I can tell there are many scumbags who can procreate together and raise their kids in awful conditions, I do not see them as being better by definition just because they have the machinery to make a baby. In fact the ability to procreate seems to me to be one of the smaller issues when it comes to whether you should get married or not. Firstly and most importantly, do you like each other enough to commit for life? Secondly, if you want to bring up a family are you capable, loving parents? Thirdly, can you actually make a baby or shall we find one for you? Marriage and procreation are completely divisible.

“But Gawd hates fags”

True, this viewpoint has been adopted by various religions and that is fine; but at the end of the day if you have the ceremony, shout hallelujah and don’t sign the paper, you’re not married. Marriage is deeply entrenched within our past, it’s so old it even predates Christianity! That’s why it’s important for people to remind everyone else that the Church’s rights to religious marriages will not be infringed upon. It makes it more upsetting that the Church insists that it is the oppressed party when it just isn’t, a gay marriage bill won’t change anything for them. They will still marry straight people, the state will just be allowed to marry gay people, there’s absolutely no crossover. Furthermore, if there were to be any crossover then I would insist that everyone complained. It is not the right of the state to decide how a church should run as long as it complies with the law. If the Church wants to be bigoted then we need to let them be bigoted. If they don’t want to allow female bishops, if they want to claim that condoms are evil, or if they want to claim that homosexuality is morally wrong then we need to let them be entitled to their terrible views. But there is no reason for the state to bow down to their bleating. The worst thing about the gay marriage bill in the UK is that in a pathetic attempt to appease the vocal religious opposition the tories included a clause that stated that the Church of England would be legally FORBIDDEN to marry gay people. How about that?! They’re not even getting the option to join the 21^st century any more! 

Sadly it gets worse than that my pious friends, did you know that I can get married?! That’s right! I can stroll on past my local church, take a piss upon their shrubberies and then saunter into the registry office wearing my favourite antichrist t-shirt. A simple flick of my wrist with pen in hand confirms me as a married citizen; free to join the legions of holy ordained couples in tax break heaven. If you don’t think gay people should be married based on religious principles then I really think you should start taking on piss-taking heterosexual atheists like myself.

As far as I’m concerned we should treat religious concerns with exactly the same amount of respect as a group of individuals that assert that Zeus thinks that homosexuals are icky and therefore sub-hetero. I’m sure they would be sincere and that any change to the status quo would damage their fragile beliefs but we shouldn’t concede that their ‘God says no’ argument is sufficient.

“What about the terribly complicated legal ramifications?! FREE SPEECH DAVE! FREE SPEECH! MY GRANDFATHER FOUGHT FOR FREE SPEECH!”

I’ve heard it all, I’ve been told that freedom of speech is at threat because any gay marriage dissenters will be made to ‘disappear’ by the overzealous left and that gay people won’t be able to have a divorce because they don’t have sex.

Basically, in this United Kingdom we have a law that prohibits those that work in the public sector from saying negative things about the things that their society accepts. So your nurses can’t let their racism seep into their hospital and your teachers can’t let their religious bias seep into their classroom. Now, the idea that public sector equality duty (our ‘anti-free speech’ laws) is the fault of gay marriage is ridiculous! Generally, my opinion is that we should go into these issues with the assumption that everyone is at least born equal biologically, that there is no reason to bear prejudice against people of different races, genders, or sexualities. We can of course note the obvious differences, but cultures all over the world have overgeneralised to see these three groups as deficient in several ways. What of the Catholic adoption agencies that have been closed down because they refuse to place babies with homosexual couples? It is important to remember at this point that the consensus in the scientific world is that gay people make absolutely fine parents, it’s a farce in itself that they have to pass some kind of parenting test whilst the rest of us straight people need only have a drunken one night stand to prove we’re capable! Imagine the moderate Nazi adoption agency? Ever willing to give children to Aryans but never to Jews or black people. I think any new charity or agency should have to conform to the rules of the society they’re in otherwise become martyrs and risk closure, if our society says that gays are equally capable parents and should not be discriminated against then they should comply (especially if their pay masters ARE the society they live in). What of the poor teacher that would be condemned for refusing to teach that gay marriage is okay? All you need to do is substitute ‘gay marriage’ for ‘racial equality’ and it seems obvious, it is right that bigoted prejudice should be discouraged by our political infrastructure. You have the right to believe any crazy thing you want privately but if you want to teach sexuality inequality to kids, refuse to give babies to homosexuals, and want to refuse to perform abortions based on your sincerely held beliefs then you must accept that you are vulnerable to your employers. If you go into a job where you’re supposed to open certain services to the public then I don’t see it as the employer’s job to bend over backwards so that they don’t have to violate the beliefs of Bill the racist or Janet the homophobe. It’s slightly unfashionable to be on the side of the employer but in these types of situations I can’t help but think that it sucks to have an employee come up to you and say they won’t do the job they’re paid for because their god/beliefs told them they shouldn’t. But like I say, this is not actually an argument against gay marriage at all! More so the existing law of public sector equality duty.

“What about the terribly complicated legal ramifications?! YOU NEED A VAGINA AND A PENIS FOR SEX DAVE! YOU CAN’T JUST POKE WHATEVER YOUR SEXUAL ORGAN MAY BE INTO A COLD TAP AND CALL IT SEX!”

This is one of the most ridiculous points I’ve ever read in the gay marriage debate, but I will play along! First I must dismiss any notion that gay people have sex, should it be more appropriately named sodomy? Rather than the more current gay/anal sex? But what about when straight folk have it? Is it anal sex or sodomy then? I gather that since sodomy has no existential purpose (though this seems a terribly grandiose term) and no procreative result that the concept of consummation is meaningless. But hang on, does this mean that sex with a condom is meaningless? Can we even count that as sex anymore?! The mind boggles, but I will roll with it! So we have a problem in being unable to use non-consummation and adultery as grounds for divorce (as gay people don’t have sex). Firstly, the idea that consummation is more important to the idea of marriage than all the festivities and legal concessions that preceded seems crazy to me! Should celibate people be refused the right to get married? Or even people that don’t intend to have a child? Is this really what we think marriage is in 2013? Having checked a few marriage application forms out I can tell you now that there is no box to tick that promises you will consummate.

“What if same-sex friends want to marry to pick up some of the legal perks?”

Unfortunately, this problem is not specific to gay marriage and can also be abused by straight marriage; so as far as I’m concerned, it’s not gay marriage’s problem.

“But…but I’m not scared of gays!”

Gooooooooooooooooal! Well played my anti-equal-rights-for-gays friend! The chances are that you’re probably not literally afraid of homosexuals, which is great! Maybe you’re slightly apprehensive about them craving your limp penis/girly bits but they don’t scare you like a James Wan film. Homophobia is indeed a poorly chosen word as it implies fear when obviously there tends to be none in the situations that it is applied. But I also think it’s cheeky of opposition to things like the same-sex bill to moan that they’re not afraid of gays and therefore they’re not homophobes. They know that they’re not being accused of being afraid, it’s just pedantic. But yes, many of the opposition certainly are an as yet undefined word that means intolerant of gay people getting the same rights as straight people.

I find it increasingly upsetting that I live in a time where many forward thinking societies won’t jump the last hurdle in civil rights and change the name of a form, and won’t quite legally accept gay people as equal to straight people. It is amazing to me that in the 21st century I’ve got to convince people that civil rights are a good idea, even in Britain. But I persevere!

Did I miss anything? Please let me know! I’m sure there are still plenty of crazy angles we can approach the problem from. But for God’s sake let’s keep it good and Christian and avoid the back passage.

TTFN!