How to really decide the election

I haven’t really been too interested in the recent election, if I’m brutally honest. The pre-election predictions, television debates, campaigning, and generally bullshit isn’t my idea of fun, whereas the post-election fracas where we endlessly debated about which lucky fellow would taste Nick Clegg’s cock got so confusing and boring even the most hardened union  stalwart secretly wanted Clegg to hurry the fuck up and join the Tories.

But the election has highlighted just how bloody awful our election system is. Single Member Simple Plurality or First Past the Post (FPTP) has never been a wonderful system, which requires a far greater belief in the independence of the House of Commons than there actually is. The MP – constituency link might actually mean something if the MP wasn’t the bitch of their party whips. But the election results have been particularly shocking this year.

A good example is this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results

“If you divide the number of votes each party received by the number of seats they won (as things stand now), you get these figures:
Conservatives: 35,021
Labour: 33,338
Liberal Democrat: 119,397”

Democracy in action.

But that’s boring, so I’ve come up with a more interesting way of sorting the parties – % of vote relative to large donations. After all, money talks in this election, and understandably the major two parties dominated this area

So the Conservatives got 36.1% of the vote with £7,317,601.74 (who gave the 1.74?) – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £202,703, or £213712 with public funding. Excellent value for money

Labour got 29% with 5,283,198.85 – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £182,179

The Liberal Democrats got 23% with a whopping £724,000 – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £31,478, or £39,752 with public funding.

The Co-Operative Party only got £33,745, but none of the vote. Proof, if it is needed, that the public don’t know what’s best for them.

So the Conservatives – 1% of the vote for £213,712

Labour – 1% of the vote for £182,179

Liberal Democrats – 1% of the vote for £39,752

God forbid what might happen if the parties were on equal footing before a proportional system. Something as hideous as democracy might spring up.

Advertisements

The hunting ban? It’s like fascism, but worse.

Britain faces a serious threat ladies and gentleman. No, it isn’t those nutty towel-heads in Iran. No, it isn’t global warming and the invasion of the mutant polar-bears. No, it isn’t even the shifty looking foreign family who just moved next door to your Daily Mail reading grandparents. It’s the fascists in power trying to prevent us from hunting foxes. The bastards.

Yes, it’s the time when the Tories are about to get back into power, and sod the economy, we need to get hunting again, because that’ll sort this shit right out. It’s no secret the rural base of the Conservative party would like only one thing better than repealing the hunting ban and that’s Margaret Thatcher wearing nothing other than a dog collar and a smile that says “privitise this”. David Cameron has made it perfectly clear  he supports the repeal, although he says he’ll offer a “free vote” on this issue. However, what a “free vote” means in a Conservative dominated Parliament is a sure-fire repeal. The current Conservative base overwhelming would vote in favour, including 119/120  in safe seats, showing the overwhelming public support for the ban  is unlikely to mean much to the Tories.

So, it seems like fox hunting will return, huzzah! Jeeves, get father’s top champers, that’s spiffing old chap. Now, let’s go chase a fox through the country and laugh when it is torn apart by dogs. But what is funny about this “debate” is the arguments put forward by the pro-hunting lobby.

So let’s look at them.

1 – It’s part of our culture. Yeah baby, who cares if it’s bloodthirsty and horrific, we’ve been doing it for decades, so clearly it can’t be bad. While we’re at bringing back cultural pastimes, I put in a vote for slavery. I’m quite thirsty at the moment, and would love to have a slave on hand to get my brew for me.

2 – Damn townies don’t know shit about our hood – Yeah, it’s easy to complain about what we do FROM THE SAFETY OF YOUR OWN HOME. BUT YOU’RE NOT OUT THERE, LIVING WITH FOXES. WE CAN’T GO OUT OUR HOUSES WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING ATTACKED BY FOXES et cetera. The only reason for opposition to hunting is those arrogant city types, looking down their noses at us just because we kill animals for fun, and wear tweet, and shag our sisters.

3 – Foxicide now – They eat our chickens, damage our property; sleep with our wives, therefore the only way to deal with them is killing them in a brutal fashion so they learn their lesson. Everyone knows animals think like that.

4 – Its good for the foxes  – Major point this. The real reason for hunting isn’t fun, but actually because it’s a vital part of our livelihood and actually better for the foxes. After all, more foxes are killed since the ban  because they are just shot instead of hunted.

However this raises a bizarre thought: The fox hunting ban has BENEFITTED farmers. Yes, that’s right. The very people who campaigned against the ban, actually benefitted from it. Using their logic, more nasty foxes are since the ban. Ergo, foxes have done less damage. Ergo, farmers benefit.

So in my humble opinion, the hunting ban should be kept, because this benefits the rural economy.

5 – If we ban hunting foxes, then why do we do nasty things to animals? While we ban hunting foxes, no-one complains about battery chickens. Yep, no-one  at all campaigns about that. Which clearly shows this is class bias. (N.B.) Some ginger revolutionaries claim the hatred of fox hunting above other methods of animal cruelty is just a symptom of the inherent gingerphobia in society, however here at the Ginger Revolution we deny that foxes are our brothers.

6 – Class bias – Those fucking proles. They’re angry that we fucked them royally in the 80s, so this is their revenge. We destroyed the lives of millions of people, pushed them into poverty and stole their dignity. But as revenge they took away one of our hobbies. The bastards.

7 – The hunting ban is like fascism, but worse. The government has stripped our civil liberties, thrown us into unwinnable and illegal conflicts, and done its best to limit democracy, but the real scary descent into Soviet Russia is the hunting ban. The ban is “fundamentally illiberal” and has “no place in a modern, tolerant and free society” according to The Countryside Alliance.  So there we have it, the final blow to liberty, a ban on slaughtering animals for fun. Goodbye freedom, hello oppression, all because we can’t chase and tear apart animals.