Fixed voters

You sometimes hear people say, on vox pops, “I’ve always voted Labour so I’ll vote Labour again this time”. Or – even more idiotic – “I come from a Labour voting family: me granddad voted Labour, me Dad voted Labour so I’ll vote Labour too. I just can’t imagine voting for any other party”.

What people are saying, of course, is that they do not possess the critical faculties to assess party policies for themselves. The Appeal to Tradition is sufficient for them.

In the case of Conservative voters, such blind allegiance is also regrettable, but in this case at least the ideology is, I believe, better. Socialists often try to pass off their position as altruistic and morally superior, whereas I believe they are more often driven by envy, bitterness and a “hard-done-by” mentality. If they cannot be successful they want nobody to be successful, or – at least – they want to reap the benefits of others’ success. (Among these I do not count “Champagne Socialists” and “Limousine Liberals”, who are hypocrites  – often thespian – with unnecessary guilt complexes.) The self-made millionaire and entrepreneur Duncan Bannatyne, for example, faced hostility from many among his northern roots, despite creating 3,000 jobs for the country having started with only an ice-cream van and the determination to work very hard.

In fact, in Britain -  a country where it is impossible to do anything, no matter how heinous, that will cause the state to abandon you (let alone put you to constructive work in a chain gang) – people are not as deprived of opportunity as they often like to think.

Brown’s gaffe

Gordon Brown has made the mistake of calling one of his own supporters a “bigot” while he thought his mic was off because she was rightly concerned about Labour’s open door immigration “policy”.

This incident is quite revealing, I believe, because it shows not only that Mr Brown says one thing in public and another in private (as we might have presumed), but it also shows us how detached from reality Mr Brown is regarding the issue of immigration that he could consider someone with her valid complaints “bigoted”. It shows us that Labour still hasn’t changed its crazed position on immigration (or, probably, multiculturalism) at all.

To me it is not so important that one thing is said in public and another in private. I believe it is of importance what is said in each situation. While we should be as consistent as we can be, most if not all people speak somewhat differently depending on who they are with. Diplomacy is sometimes called for in a public situation where there are other costs at stake, but one would hope that the speaker’s genuine position, when in private, would be the right one. In this case it was the wrong one, and that’s what principally concerns me – especially as Mr Brown is in a position to actually realise his plans (or lack thereof).

Brown’s method of dealing with this faux pas was also dishonest, and this was entirely public. He claimed to have misunderstood the woman, claimed that what he said in the car was not his genuine position. Both of these claims are most likely false. He also said he apologised if what he said has been offensive, which is not the same thing at all as saying “I’m sorry for what I said”. Furthermore his initial response was to say he would not willingly have put himself in a position where had to say something like that about someone – undoubtedly his most truthful comment and of course not an apology but rather an expression of exasperation.

No public figure is lauding it over Mr Brown too much, because everybody knows this is something most people do, and they might themselves be caught out in the future, but the fact remains that although people claim to want leaders who are “like them” they really mean only like their good points. Really they want Kipling’s impossible If character. Nonetheless this incident will undoubtedly damage Brown severely at the polling booths, where he was already going to do badly.

If he cared about the party Mr Brown would resign at this point and insert someone such as David Miliband in his place. I’m not very keen on Miliband but he would stand a better chance than Brown in the election. But he will not resign because – unlike Nigel Farage, for example – he cares more about his own success than that of party policy. Ironically this will probably cause him to suffer the humiliation of one of the greatest Labour defeats in political history.

One effect of this incident is that it deprives us of knowing just how heavily Labour would have been defeated on May 6th had the incident not occurred. Quite heavily, I dare say – I believe their vote now comprises almost entirely of benefits recipients and those who are opposed to traditional British cultural identity. But with the addition of this gaffe it is now highly likely that Labour will trail in third place after the Liberal Democrats, as many who would have voted for them now vote Liberal – and this will change our political landscape.

I will still be voting for UKIP, however if hearsay is anything to go by my vote will count for nothing, because I am voting by post and they say Labour have those votes rigged. It wouldn’t surprise me.

Forthcoming election

Many people remain unimpressed by any of the “main three” candidates for the forthcoming election. Brown has allowed incompetence and corruption within his party and almost every decision Labour makes seems to be wrong. Cameron comes across as somewhat slippery and fake and you have no idea what he really stands for. Clegg and the liberals come across as naïve. So who’s left?

As Pat Condell urges here, you should vote with your conscience. Vote for the only credible party whose aim is for us to gain control of our country again. Go out and vote UKIP on May 6th. That’s what I will be doing.

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

The £212 million phone system

It is not uncommon, when you phone a company in the UK, to find yourself thereafter in a perpetual loop whereby you are passed from one person to the next, before you have time to protest, and then finally, after six people, you end up with the first one again, who cannot help you at all. During this time, of course, you have to repeat your situation (usually a product of their incompetence) at length to every individual. To say this experience is frustrating is something of an understatement.

The other common experience is the following, which I just had: you phone a company, the Nationwide in this case, and are answered not by the usual Indian call centre person whom you cannot understand, but by a computer. The computer says:

“Hello. Please say the name of the person you wish to speak to.”

You say “John Harris”.

It says “Tom Parris. Please hold while I transfer you.” (Apparently this crude artificial intelligence has self-consciousness now.)

After a moment: “This line is does not exist [as if you had claimed it did]. I am now going to transfer you to the operator.” Then it comes… “clunk”.

You think “It can’t have just disconnected me. Why would it do that?” But you know it has. It lied. It wasn’t going to transfer you to the operator at all. You are disinclined to call back, or to have anything to do with the company, but you know you have to, at least temporarily.

You reflect on the money that would be needed to install a telephone system that worked in a big company like this. Or maybe some staff instead. A company would surely need to make some healthy revenue in order to do this. You discover that the said company made £212 million profit last year – they complained this was not enough – and you are thereby reminded that money does not often buy managerial competence, or conscience.