Electoral Engineering And Snake Oil

Conservative Manifesto
Labour Manifesto

• Liberal Democrats Manifesto (Clegg, education)
• Liberal Democrats Manifesto (Huhne, leadership)
• Liberal Democrats Manifesto (Kennedy) 

The launching of the Liberal Democrats manifestos highlights the situation that a leader has yet to be declared? Is it the same manifesto or different ones? I thought Clegg was captain of the ship since all the posturing did suggest this. And still does. But why Clegg AND Huhne AND Kennedy? Now there is absolute confusion. The three launches of (apparently) one party's manifesto does create just a little chaos. Electioneering without a leader (?) demonstrates confusion at the very least. Possibly, it's all mine and presumably, this is a good reason that the recent debate involving Chancellor of the Exchequer (Alistair Darling) with George Osborne (shadow chancellor) and Dr. Vince Cable (Lib Dem Deputy Leader) on matters economic went ahead since this never addressed the issue of who's at the helm of the Lib Dem ship. That appears very cynical, but I am truly confused. The organisation seems to be somewhat muddled, though Kennedy seems to have defeated his demons (10/10). I am confused by this performance and as a result this party cannot enter into consideration.

• None of the three parties (Labour, Tory, Lib Dem), not the would-be leaders (Clegg, Huhne, Kennedy) of one party (Lib Dem) does anyway, so this confusion is rather academic

Politicians do seem to like keeping such information under wraps (Mr, Dr....). It's no secret (unlike the quasi secret society Bilderberg Group even though lists of participants may get published) so why overlook it? This attitude does engender a lack of trust as though there is some shame in being educated. A PhD does (usually) demonstrate some intelligence. Commentators support this with Dr James Gordon Brown, so what's the problem these people have.

This lack of being

upfront

and the
failure
to demonstrate

honesty

Mr. Gordon Brown
Dr. James Gordon Brown
Mr. Vince Cable
Dr. Vince Cable

Not a recipe that can engender trust, though anyone who actually feels the need to say "trust me" shouldn't be trusted. Anyone who precedes a statement with "trust me" is about to tell a lie. A dilemma? No, but behaviour, posturing, body language and non-verbal communication do reveal a great deal. Reading from a script is not a good idea and it's peculiar that those with a public relations background like 'call me Dave' Cameron (and potentially the pm's spouse-coach Sarah Brown) don't appreciate this: he's doing it all the time and it's really so irritating and distracting that he's totally unwatchable. Really good and knowledgeable speakers and lecturers usually stand away from behind the lectern and address the audience with roving eye-contact and don't refer to a script. This makes an audience actually feel involved rather than just being lectured to. Cameron: definitely No but Clegg seems to show the a more sincere attitude and Brown? No comment. Otherwise it appears more like a church-person giving a sermon and that's not good unless that's what they intend to portray: preaching to the converted or are actually attempting proselytism.

• However, some appear to be well-coached, yet come over as an actor on a stage. Those like Blair may even appear to offer the "trust me, I am a Doctor" attack, but this is glaringly incomplete since they come over as slippery and absolutely insincere. It's nauseating and definitely someone not to be trusted.

Honesty and sincerity is NEVER scripted

Later this week a live TV debate (Thursday, 15th April, 2010) between the three main political parties is scheduled. I have only a limited inclination to watching (script or no script?) and especially 'listening'. The proviso is effectively to ignore everything. A charlatan selling snake oil? No interest at all.

One good reason (the only one) to observe the live TV debate

would be to see if a script is necessary as a prompt.

Hopefully not or it will be doomed almost before it even gets started.

It is common today for product manufacturers to play the charlatan with diet plans and cosmetics targeting mostly women and the psychology suggests this is a good reason for involving the leaders' wives. Thankfully, and to her credit, Nick Clegg's wife is busy with more important activities. The innuendo that the Liberal Democrats are unworthy of the peoples' vote is a standing of absolute arrogance. This statement does not infer support for the Liberal Democrats, but the objection to such offensive and indirectly derogatory remarks. Smearing does not raise the standing of anyone, just the opposite and shows what we will all get with a positive vote. The attitude is appalling.

• Don't waste your vote by voting with your conscience, but cast a tactical vote: vote Tory and keep out Labour or vice versa. It's typical and illustrates clear desperation. It may, in fact, be statistically a valid argument. But it's specious since to vote Tory or Labour to swing the odds in favour of a disfavoured (or totally rejected) choice is abhorrent. Vote for something against your conscience. I have no personal axe to grind against Brown, Cameron or Clegg as I personally know none of them. I just don't like or trust any of them and it's all about trust. And they all appear to want to make it personal.

On a scale of 0 to 10, the trust
score is a resounding zero

The statements "we would like to..." or "we want to..." should be enshrined in a legal framework so if promises are made and not fulfilled within a reasonable period (1 year?), this would be a breach of contract for any future PM and constitutes sufficient terms for impeachment. Broken 'promises' are effectively lies and to take control of a government and rule over us (the people) under such circumstances could be construed as an intent to deceive. This is a criminal act. The very high stakes of electing 'a party', based on the game of words alone, make the pre-election debate so critical for those electioneering.

• I have better and more interesting things to do than listen and watch snake oil charlatans attempting to 'convince' by peddling their wares.

Brown, Gordon: And Dennis Healey
Brown, Gordon: Broadband And State Paranoia
Brown, Gordon: Chancellor to PM
Brown, Gordon: Change
Brown, Gordon: Exit Strategy
Brown, Gordon: IMF And Gold Reserves
Brown, Gordon: Mr Nice Guy
Brown, Gordon: Snubs (2008) Olympic Games
Brown, Gordon: The Doctor
Brown, Gordon: The Future
Brown, Gordon: Toxicity Warning
Brown, Gordon: More Toxic

Cameron, David: A Profile
Cameron, David: Background
Cameron, David: In A Spin
Cameron, David: Loves ‘Hoodies'

In the UQ (aka UK) Ltd there is no such device as a "None of the above" vote if no party represents any form of confidence. MP reforms mostly as the result of expense claim manipulation is just one example of (alleged) abuse. The so-called "it's all in the rules" bleating that clearly isn't true (The Green Book). The defensive arguments may, however, be twisted and attempts made to re-interpret these very clear rules. It's really quite nauseating to witness these upstanding and honourable individuals collectively reading from the same hymn sheet with the "it's all in the rules" mantra. Spoiling a paper is the only way to demonstrate protest, but such a vote is not valid and even with the number of papers returned it is unclear if the eligibility to vote is 'counted' as an essentially returned 'no-vote' and reduces the overall result %ages. The people are there to serve the government and are basically assumed as being unable to make decisions and elect a government to represent the people.

• Once a government has been elected by the people, the people are no longer necessary as the parasite is in charge and does what it likes. There is no mechanism to impeach a government in the UQ (aka UK) Ltd.

It's usually how wars start. The people are never asked, but the 'elected' (tactical voting ensures 'by default') government of the day acts not in the in interest of the people, but the benefit of the government and, so it appears, by definition those elected MPs from which it is filled. It's usually based somehow on finance and the advantages that are to be had. For someone and it's certainly not the people.

It's in the public interest!!

Some countries have (or certainly would like) a mandatory voting system that makes it a criminal offence to NOT vote. Claims that it is an obligation of citizenship is intrinsically nasty, and would force the people to 'freely' vote for something with which they possibly disagree. On pain of... it's a medieval attitude. But then politics is very backward thinking and politicians imagine themselves to be so proactive!

Mephedrone