Friday, 2 April 2010

The issues that should be (but aren't) election priorities

So, politics is a wide field covering more than just schools, hospitals and bloggers.

Here are some of the big issues that aren't being discussed (so far) at the election, that could (and should) have a massive part to play...

How we can be talking about budget cuts without a serious discussion going on about cutting Trident just highlights how wasteful our political parties are. The Government has conceded that
Trident will cost the British taxpayer £20bn. Now, not only is that a lot of nurses, it's also a lot of money. Opposition to Trident isn't just within the fringes of society, it is a widespread and morally powerful issue that some politicians are sitting quietly on, knowing that if this becomes a hot topic, their consciences will not allow them to tow the party line.

The Olympics
We, the UK, are hosting the Olympics in 847 days. Usually, in any other country, this would be something to celebrate, to draw on during an election and to inspire positivity during such a gloomy time. Yet, even now it's election time, one of the biggest events during the next parliament and I've not heard it mentioned once in the pre-election build up.

The silence surrounding this £9bn event is typically worrying.

Are we going to produce the sporting equivalent of the Millenium Dome? This is an event which has cost us £billions and will (hopefully) bring in many more £billions, but also has the potential to embarrass or galvanise our country. Yet no real noise (other than repeating an updating press release) at all from the Prime Minister, David Cameron, the Press.

This has f*ck up written all over it and whoever wins the election is going to look like a t*t.

No, not the funding of our armed forces, I mean the actual conflict. It's not going well. This is never going to be a vote winner for the Government which is why it is not being dicussed.

I believe the total number of British soldiers lost now stands at 279.

I'm sick of hearing politicians spinning the line, 'if you attack us on the war you do not support our troops' and when asked a question on the conflict replying with no detail in the answer but highlighting the courage and bravery of our armed forces. If you respect our brave, courageous heroes, you will discuss the issue properly.
Subrosa highlighted an article in the Telegraph which questions why the Prime Minister is so quiet on the Afghanistan issue and increases the claim that his "antipathy" is worrying. I do now worry and believe that the Prime Minister does not regard the armed forces or the conflicts we are engaged in as anything other than "something that just comes with the job". What is equally terrifying is that I genuinely believe David Cameron is of exactly the same mindset.

Some have said Cameron just doesn't want to look like he's using the armed forces as a political tool because he'd get hounded out. I just don't buy it. Cameron wants to win voters round, in his own words on a "local" level and doesn't register the war in his head.

The war is a horrible result of misjudgement. The public don't support the war (but, politicians, we do still support the troops) and there is no obvious definition of what a win, success of endgame is. This is a major issue for the majority of the country and it is being sidelined during this election.

These are just some issues which I think should be getting more 'Prime Ministerial' attention from the Prime Minister, Cameron and Clegg. The Lib Dems are better on these issues, but the important thing is that Nick Clegg is not. His party 'gets it' but he doesn't use this when being leader. He is playing the 'Prime Ministerial' game which he cannot win and will look like nothing other than a desparate wannabe throughout if he tries to go toe-to-toe on "the so-called big issues" against "the so-called big boys".

I've not blogged for a while so might come back to this throughout the election to see what else isn't but should be discussed. The recession, the credit crunch, all that is being overdone and we are starting to lose focus on who we want to govern the rest of what we do. The majority of people's lives will only be impacted in a small way by the recession and the majority of Britain is not the credit crunch. We need to remember that one way or another, cuts or no cuts, everything else is still there and someone needs to organise it.


scunnert said...

Good points. I doubt that we will get a serious conversation on any of these issues as politicians are trained to "stay on point".

Political Dissuasion said...


It's a nonsense. Every budget (give or take a few) is still going to have at least 80% of what it has already and NO ONE is talking about what they'll do with those departments, programmes, curriculums, waiting lists...

And most people are banging the drum for their parties thinking they are deserving of power.

If this election is decided by cuts and cuts alone, everything else is that the state is involved in is going to be an absolute hash.

scunnert said...

You're right PD - it usually means they don't have any new ideas in those areas. Sometimes though when they do have ideas they first have to create a crisis in order to implement it - that's when they're at their most dangerous. Standard practice for "solving" crisis in services is to sell them off to some corporation their brother or buddy runs.

If they're not doing that it means that department is already contracted with said corporation for something really lucrative. It's odd though, isn't it, that when you buy a couple of penny stocks the company sends you an annual report detailing how much they spent on what, and how much they made. I'm still waiting for an annual report from governments I've been funding for decades.

Instead we get a speech and if you want a hard copy you've got to buy one.