Sending smoke signals
I don’t know how to send smoke signals, especially not from where I am sat at the moment, but if I could you would see blue wisps floating up in to the atmosphere.
To many of you, this may be news akin to announcing that the Pope is a Catholic, but deciding who to vote for this time around has not been easy. Still, if I don’t have another bout of deliberation in the morning, and manage to read the ballot paper correctly, it is likely that Caroline Nokes can count on my vote.
I know that announcing one’s political allegiance can be something of a taboo, but we shall pretend that normal rules do not apply in the Blogosphere. As promised in my earlier post, I’d like to offer some positive reasons for the choice I’ve made. Looking good on TV is, surprisingly I know, not one of them.
So, three reasons why I’m inclined to vote Conservative:
1) Caroline Nokes has pledged support for the Westminster 2010 declaration (and is the only main candidate in my constituency to do so). As a Christian, this is of real importance to me. If you haven’t already taken a gander at the website, I suggest you do. There’s even the opportunity to see which candidates will uphold it.
2) In terms of policies, I would align myself more with the Conservative party than anyone else. This is a point proven by my results on the Telegraph's "How Should I Vote" page. Admittedly, I do not agree with everything which they have to say – including their opposition to the Heathrow 3rd Runway and their crazy ‘set up your own school’ gimmick to name but two examples. However, there is lots which I do like. Cutting benefits for those who refuse jobs? Bring it on. Not taxing pensions or raising National Insurance (as other parties would)? Good move.
3) I don’t want a hung parliament, or another term with Gordon Brown as PM. I’ve surprised myself in coming to this conclusion given that I’d like to see something different, and I’d be interested to see Labour putting their money where their mouth is rather than allowing the Conservatives to take the flak for their mess.
However, as I’ve outlined a lot recently, Nick Clegg’s “real change” spiel is more hot air than Iceland can produce in a month. The evidence on the ground is not indicative of walking the walk, and if a hung parliament produces anything different it is unlikely to be positive. Indeed, the growing risks of a hung parliament include some serious ramifications for the UK’s economic position, and no clear leadership at a time when we need it most. Some even predict “even less transparency as parties seek to make decisions behind closed doors.”
So, the positive reasoning for my third point is that even if I disagree to some extent with the chosen direction, I feel that this country needs clear guidance and the ability for government to take hard and potentially unpopular decisions. Some may resent two party politics, but now is not the time for electoral reform. Hence my reason for backing the Conservative party this time around.
Bring on tomorrow…
Comments
The Greek crisis is a much larger concern for the British economy and the experience of the PIGS nations proof that what is needed is economic growth in the next year not huge cuts. Ironically, Ireland is a worse position economically after all of the austerity measures.
And as much as I hate to admit it, I agree with Gordon Brown, the tory policy will put recovery at risk by cutting £6 billion from the economy. Bearing in mind that these so calle defficiancies include the loss of 15,000 whitehall jobs. Politicians have promised to cut waste since the year dot and still there is more waste to find - or so we're told.
As far as the NI rise goes - I think that all those earning over £20,000 a year can afford to pay an extra 1% on their earnings over £110 per week. I personally can afford the extra £5 a week it would cost me (I use weekly figures as NI contributions are done on a week 1 and not cumulative basis).
In a fair society those with the ability to pay have a responsibility to pay - and not use their wealth to avoid taxation.