Aloadofoldstodge: Wasting My Vote on May 1st


Sunday, 13 April 2008
Wasting My Vote on May 1st
It's with a heavy heart and a sense of foreboding I approach the London Mayoral election on May 1st. For those of you unfamiliar with the vagaries of the London voting system, every voter has two votes, a first and second preference.

This system has worked well in the past for Ken Livingstone, the Labour candidate now and in 2004 but an Independent in 2000. He picked up a lot of second preference votes from Lib Dem, Green and other party supporters. Conversely, the system has previously disadvantaged the Conservatives who picked up markedly fewer second preferences. Most second preferences went to the Lib Dem or Green or UKIP candidates last time but as these candidates weren't getting enough first preferences, it made no overall difference.

As a Lib Dem supporter, therefore, the vote that counts is NOT my first preference but my second preference. In 2000, I voted for Ken Livingstone as my second preference, in 2004 I voted Green as my second preference but what will I do on May 1st 2008 ?

My view is that Brian Paddick is far and away the best candidate on offer and I would recommend anyone reading this blog who has a vote in the London mayoral election to give Paddick your FIRST preference.

The choice for a second preference is far less inspiring but let's briefly consider the runners:

Richard Barnbrook (BNP) - may become the first BNP Council leader in 2010. Currently Opposition leader on Barking & Dagenham BC. Possibly one of the more politically astute candidates, but the BNP is socially authoritarian and economically illiterate so I couldn't vote for them.

Gerard Batten (UKIP) - senior member of UKIP and an MEP for London. UKIP fails to realise the relationship between the City, the rest of London and European financial institutions. A withdrawal from the EU would damage the City and London whatever other benefits it may bring. Not the right candidate at all.

Sian Berry (Green) - supports Green Left and is therefore an eco-socialist. The Greens of 2008 are not the cuddly environmentalists of 1989. They have become relentlessly authoritarian and could be better described as eco-fascists. The voting "pact" with Livingstone was the last straw for me - the Lib Dems are once again the only sensible environmental party.

Alan Craig (CPA) - the candidate most local to me as he lives just down the road from me in Canning Town. Became a Newham Councillor in 2002 and was third in the Newham Mayoral election in 2006. He is, however, a Christian Democrat and has taken a strongly anti-Muslim pro-Christian stance on a number of local issues. While I respect Alan's local record, I find his social policies illiberal and inappropriate in a cosmopolitan City like London.

Lindsay German (Left List) - has emerged from the wreckage of Respect as the candidate of the Far Left. Formerly a Trotskysist, she stood in West Ham in 2005 and got about 20% of the vote. Since the departure of Galloway, Respect has effectively imploded. Her left-wing politics do nothing for me.

Boris Johnson (Con) - I've said plenty about him. He is far too light-weight and inexperienced for this job. There are other Conservatives I might have considered giving my second preference vote to but he isn't one of them. His boorish attitude exemplifies much of what I dislike about the Tories and his performance on Newsnight was lamentable. Some Lib Dems might be tempted to vote for him to vote against Ken Livingstone. I wouldn't.

Ken Livingstone (Lab) - Again, I've said a lot about him too. A long-time London political operator, he took control of the GLC in a post-election putsch in 1982. Labour MP for Brent East but left the Labour party after a long-standing feud with Tony Blair. Ran as an Independent in 2000 for new London Mayoralty and won. After eight years, there is a sense in which his immediate circle is tainted with corruption. Back in the Labour party, he won a closer contest in 2004 but is now suffering with the rest of Labour. I would welcome his defeat though I would also acknowledge he has done much that is positive for London such as the Oyster card.

Winston McKenzie - a political chameleon having been a member of Labour, the Conservatives, UKIP and Veritas. He joined the Tories after David Cameron became leader but whether he expected to become the Tory candidate for Mayor I don't know. Since failing to get that nomination, he has gone off to become an Independent. I have no idea what policies he has (if any). Not for me.

Matt O'Connor (Eng Dems) - better known as the leader of the pressure group Fathers4Justice which has carried out a number of high-profile publicity stunts. The English Democrats, despite their fine-sounding words, are unpleasant nationalists with a strongly authoritarian streak. They would, I suspect, like nothing once than to break up the Union and have an independent England conveniently forgetting how well England has done out of the Union.

As you can see, with this rag tag of assorted dimwits, halfwits, nitwits and racists (delete as appropriate), Londoners like me have a spectacularly poor choice of Mayoral candidates.

I cannot, in truth, give any of the above my second preference so I face the reality of wasting my vote on May 1st. It's a sad state of affairs for me but it will be far worse for London whichever of these non-entities the people of London are stupid enough or angry enough to vote for (more ironic given that the turnout is probably going to be around 40%).
[Rep]

'They would, I suspect, like nothing once than to break up the Union and have an independent England conveniently forgetting how well England has done out of the Union.'

Yeah - like I've really benefitted from the contribution from 3 small territories.:-)
[Rep]

Of course you have or the ruling classes have anyway because otherwise it wouldn't of happened and wouldn't of persisted. Did you think the union was forced on England by the formidable Welsh army? And I'm sure you think Poland forced Germany to invade them. Larger and stronger territories never enter into such arrangements and rarely continue with them if they don't anticipate a net gain.
[Rep]

You say:

"Gerard Batten (UKIP) - senior member of UKIP and an MEP for London. UKIP fails to realise the relationship between the City, the rest of London and European financial institutions. A withdrawal from the EU would damage the City and London whatever other benefits it may bring. Not the right candidate at all."

This is patently untrue. Our withdrawal from the EU would not damage our international centre of finance. It currently thrives IN SPITE OF the EU. It should be noted also that the EU wish to "harmonise" aspects of the international finance industry as part of its plan to make the Euro the reserve currency of choice. Hmmm. Look at what has happened to our once-vibrant fishing industry. And can you really entrust the future of the City to an organisation that cannot get something as basic as its accounts signed off by auditors for well over ten years?

Perhaps a clear break from the EU could signal a welcome departure from the clutches of an organisation that finds financial responsibility an optional concept to embrace.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Of course you have or the ruling classes have anyway because otherwise it wouldn't of happened and wouldn't of persisted. Did you think the union was forced on England by the formidable Welsh army? And I'm sure you think Poland forced Germany to invade them. Larger and stronger territories never enter into such arrangements and rarely continue with them if they don't anticipate a net gain.

Come on! It only happened to safeguard England from a possible attack from the French via Scotland. The Scots often supported the French against England.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Kentishman:
Someone quoted in the first posting to this thread wrote:

UKIP fails to realise the relationship between the City, the rest of London and European financial institutions. A withdrawal from the EU would damage the City and London....

What nonsense.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
Come on! It only happened to safeguard England from a possible attack from the French via Scotland. The Scots often supported the French against England.

Because the English invaded them and tried to conquer them, I believe the Auld alliance was started by Robert the Bruce. There was no danger of this in 1707, there was certainly an element of guarding against the Jacobites who drew alot of support in Scotland.

But the poor defences of Scotland in the 08, 15, 19 and 45 risings show that this was not the Westminister Whig oligarch's first priority in having the union, so much as being able to better legally dominate over the Scottish gentry, as they had the English gentry such as those from Northumbria, and try and squish Jacobitism and Episcopalianism. Plus they envisioned some other material benefits.
[Rep]

The Scots support the EU against England, they will collaborate with anyone against England. I am glad the union of GB came about, because if it didn't England would of been wiped long ago.

The Scots in government today rule England in order to wreck England, the Scots act like a pack of hate-filled victims and they still make excuses for it!

I am really interested about what happened to Pictland and why England was united.
[Rep]

You know you are talking absolute rubbish? I mean you clearly have an anti-Scottish agenda and no idea of history or basic logic.

The Scots formed an alliance with France after England tried to conquer them and England had absorbed places like Berwick and Cumbria. The English dominated the union for centuries and were the ones who brought it about. So let's tone down the rhetoric and bring in more facts if you want to continue your bigotry.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
You know you are talking absolute rubbish? I mean you clearly have an anti-Scottish agenda and no idea of history or basic logic.

The Scots formed an alliance with France after England tried to conquer them and England had absorbed places like Berwick and Cumbria. The English dominated the union for centuries and were the ones who brought it about. So let's tone down the rhetoric and bring in more facts if you want to continue your bigotry.

Here's a tissue, go cry to those that Scotland collaborate with!

Funny how you accuse other of bigotry and anti-Scottishness, when all you spew out is anti-English ********!

So I take it Pictland was wiped out by the Scots.
[Rep]