Sunday, 6 December 2009

The Politics Of Hate

Since originally writing this item, I have joined the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and am now their candidate for MP for Hove and Portslade in the 2010 general election. UKIP are a non-racist, libertarian party, committed to giving power back to the people. With more direct democracy and by having our Parliament at Westminster answerable to noone but the UK population - I believe they, and only they, can deliver what I have been looking for and had set out below.

It has become clear that the none of the leaders of main stream parties are really interested in running this country.

These 'leaders' are more interested in being the equivalent of 'state governors' to the UK within a federal EU. Why this should be the case is not totally clear, but to me it seems the most likely explanation is that they don't want the ultimate responsibility of leading a soverign government. Maybe they don't have the confidence to do it, maybe they are too lazy and would rather get the money for an easier job.

The question has to be are there any people in the UK who do want to, and are fit to lead a soverign nation? If so, where are they? and why aren't they already leading a main stream party (or at least in the running to do so?).

The answer to the question on why they aren't already part of mainstream political party is answered with a single word 'hate'. It is obvious (when considered) that party political allegiance are not based on a belief or positive attitude towards a party or its beliefs, it is founded on a hate for the alternatives.

A large number of people in the UK hate the labour party and all that it stands for, a similarly large number of people in the UK the conservative party and all that it stands for.

Their hate is not necessarily irrational - so can't just be dismissed. After all parties want to appeal to as many people as possible, so the whole philosophy of gaining support is "who do we *have* to exclude?", "How far can we go in accepting everyone - who must we draw the line at?" so those not attracted by a party are almost certainly that that it hates. So, having either party leading the country cannot be acceptible in the face of such opposition. There must be a better way.

Traditionally the answer to 'a better way' has been put forward as having a third party holding the balance - their position secured by a change from first-past-the-post elections to proportional-representation. However the 'third party' offered has always been hated, or at least held in contempt, to a similar degree to the two main parties.

It is the whole party system that is broken - it is based on tribal hate. Hate motivates people to the polls far more effectively than hope or love. Messing around with the vote counting system is a cynical ploy for a small third party to get power for itself with out actually having a similar level of support.

The answer has to be more direct accountability - at the individual representative level within government, not at the party level. More granular representation of peoples views, directly expressed in the government that leads them. So people can vote for what they support, rather than voting against what they hate (and so getting whatever remains).

The party system is based on hate, we need a system based on hope.