Why, why, and why again must Neanderthal Northern Ireland persist with the cumbersome Single Transferable Vote for the purpose of electing three MEPs out of a list of only ten candidates? Surely a 'first-past-the-post', or to be precise first three-past-the-post solution is infinitely more preferable and far less time-consuming. Considering the fact that Northern Ireland's voters cast their preferences on the Thursday and then wait until the following Monday for the count to begin, and then after the yawn fest of several eliminations and vote re-distributions, the final two MEPs are not officially over the finishing line until the Tuesday, five days after the vote. It's a shambolic scenario which even Third World countries would be able to avoid. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from maintaining the same electoral system for the European parliamentary election in the six-counties constituency. Almost always, the top three first preference votes go to the three MEPs who are ultimately elected after the laborious nonsense of the redistribution of the votes of eliminated candidates. This drama simply prolongs the agony unnecessarily in a farce that is akin to much ado about nothing. Come on Norn Iron, let logic prevail.
Secondly, I've been watching a copious amount of election and general politics coverage on the BBC and let me assure the ill-informed that when it comes to confronting politicians, the highly competent Andrew Neil makes Jeremy Paxman seem like a pussycat. In fact, I find JP to be very affable and someone who relishes the opportunity for a tete-a-tete with all manner of people. Jeremy just loves interviews, even if he may protest otherwise. He is perfectly at home in such interviews.
This brings me on to another issue. Politicians are getting worse, not better, at evading questions and failing to give straight answers. The political swine even compound this disagreeable situation by generally starting most responses with "First of all, let me make the following point" which is the repeated formula of trying to clarify a number of points and promote a number of bits and pieces which the interviewer has not requested. Such manoeuvring from politicians does little to reinforce public confidence in a profession that is viewed in some circles as a playground for slippery characters whose commitment to honesty, straight-talking, and integrity is conspicuous by its absence. Please politicos, answer the flaming question and stop sidestepping issues. It's counter-productive.
Next of all, I am particularly amused and confused by all these deluded politicians who state that although their party is struggling terribly in the opinion polls, they retort with "That's not what I've been hearing on the doorsteps." Oh come off it. Has it not occurred to you that many people are merely agreeing with you and pledging to vote for you just to get rid of you from their door? When politicians try to persuade us that the feedback on the doorsteps is favourable, then they are only fooling themselves. Candidates really must stop persisting with this broken record about what they are hearing on the doorsteps. It's boring.
Furthermore, we find that when an election is over, the vanquished state that they didn't quite get the message across properly. Could it be that the voters are more than familiar with your message and just did not like what they heard?
Finally, the electorate also have unrealistic expectations of the various political parties. This usually explains why newly-elected governments are suddenly very unpopular one or two years after coming to power, such as 1967, 1976, 1981, and 2012. The stupid electorate expect the new incumbents to wave a wand and introduce all manner of reforms that will lead to increases in pay, cuts in taxes, a prosperous economy, better transport services and an improved transport infrastructure, better healthcare provision, improved education standards, oh and world peace too. People expect far too much of elected politicians and it is important that political parties dampen down the naïve expectations of the population, instead of wild-eyed daydreams of jam tomorrow and a brighter future, as they misleadingly promise in conference speeches and manifesto 'spin'. High expectations lead to hopes dashed and reveal elected governments to be impotent or incompetent or just downright dishonest about their vision of better times ahead. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
*****SEE ALSO http://gw930.blog.com
Secondly, I've been watching a copious amount of election and general politics coverage on the BBC and let me assure the ill-informed that when it comes to confronting politicians, the highly competent Andrew Neil makes Jeremy Paxman seem like a pussycat. In fact, I find JP to be very affable and someone who relishes the opportunity for a tete-a-tete with all manner of people. Jeremy just loves interviews, even if he may protest otherwise. He is perfectly at home in such interviews.
This brings me on to another issue. Politicians are getting worse, not better, at evading questions and failing to give straight answers. The political swine even compound this disagreeable situation by generally starting most responses with "First of all, let me make the following point" which is the repeated formula of trying to clarify a number of points and promote a number of bits and pieces which the interviewer has not requested. Such manoeuvring from politicians does little to reinforce public confidence in a profession that is viewed in some circles as a playground for slippery characters whose commitment to honesty, straight-talking, and integrity is conspicuous by its absence. Please politicos, answer the flaming question and stop sidestepping issues. It's counter-productive.
Next of all, I am particularly amused and confused by all these deluded politicians who state that although their party is struggling terribly in the opinion polls, they retort with "That's not what I've been hearing on the doorsteps." Oh come off it. Has it not occurred to you that many people are merely agreeing with you and pledging to vote for you just to get rid of you from their door? When politicians try to persuade us that the feedback on the doorsteps is favourable, then they are only fooling themselves. Candidates really must stop persisting with this broken record about what they are hearing on the doorsteps. It's boring.
Furthermore, we find that when an election is over, the vanquished state that they didn't quite get the message across properly. Could it be that the voters are more than familiar with your message and just did not like what they heard?
Finally, the electorate also have unrealistic expectations of the various political parties. This usually explains why newly-elected governments are suddenly very unpopular one or two years after coming to power, such as 1967, 1976, 1981, and 2012. The stupid electorate expect the new incumbents to wave a wand and introduce all manner of reforms that will lead to increases in pay, cuts in taxes, a prosperous economy, better transport services and an improved transport infrastructure, better healthcare provision, improved education standards, oh and world peace too. People expect far too much of elected politicians and it is important that political parties dampen down the naïve expectations of the population, instead of wild-eyed daydreams of jam tomorrow and a brighter future, as they misleadingly promise in conference speeches and manifesto 'spin'. High expectations lead to hopes dashed and reveal elected governments to be impotent or incompetent or just downright dishonest about their vision of better times ahead. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
*****SEE ALSO http://gw930.blog.com
No comments:
Post a Comment