It doesn’t matter which party you vote for the same government always gets in.

A Social Conservative’s Best Option in the Election was to Not Vote –

No, my forefathers did not die for this. That is, for me to choose between two buffoons, both of whom head parties which will do anything to pick up votes, other than represent their traditional voters.

I sat in despair as I rather reluctantly forced myself to watch all the recent “leaders’” “debates”. The standard of actual debate in these was abysmal, largely because – beyond Brexit – the parties are not adversarial, as they should be. Instead, they stand for the same nonsense principles: egalitarian education; responsive rather than proactive policing; openness to mass immigration; and a preference of modern, liberal values over family-focussed, more traditional values.

The Labour Party, I am told, must be stopped by all means, regardless of the state of the Conservative Party. I disagree. The problem of anti-Semitism has certainly been exaggerated by the Conservative Party, which will wilfully drive any smear campaign in order to pick up a few votes – just as the problem of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party has been exaggerated by Labour for the same reason. Whilst I disagree with Jeremy Corbyn on almost everything, his record on anti-racist measures prevents me from believing he is ragingly anti-Jewish. Likewise, I may disagree with Mr. Corbyn’s plan for the economy, but I don’t find Mr. Johnson’s particularly appealing. In all other areas, the two parties offer the same hopeless, liberal policies, all of which should be rejected by conservatives (especially those of a more traditionalist ilk).

Let’s take the policy areas I mentioned above.

On education, both wish to keep the comprehensive system intact, despite it being a demonstrable failure (read more on this here). A true conservative would do all that he could to bring back the system which does most to help poor, clever children reach their educational potentials – the grammar school system. Mr. Johnson is no such thing.

On policing, the Conservative Party has tried to present itself as ‘tough’ and proactive. This is phoney. The promise, for example, of 20,000 more police is useless, if these are not on the streets – and they won’t be, since the ‘beat’ system was abolished by Labour in the late 1960s, with little-to-no opposition from the Conservative Party at the time. We actually have more police per head of population today than we ever did when the beat system was properly pursued. As such, it matters not how many police we have per se – rather, it matters what they are doing. They should be walking the streets and preventing crime, not sitting in offices or driving to crime scenes in cars, when it is already too late. I have written more on this here. Other measures promised by the Conservatives, such as the increase of ‘stop and search’ powers, will do more to lessen the liberty of the people and should be avoided at all costs.

On immigration, it should first be highlighted that a ‘points-based system’ which Mr. Johnson wishes to implement does not necessarily mean immigration figures will fall (as a large proportion of the population would support). That the prime minister promises this will happen should not fill us with much hope. Conservatives have always promised to lower immigration, since they know this is a vote winner – but the opposite has almost always happened. In any case, Boris is an open social-liberal who has previously dismissed voters for ‘moaning’ about the increase of immigration under Labour. I would take all his promises – especially on issues such as these – with a few handfuls of salt.

Talking of social liberalism, why does anybody believe that Mr. Johnson – a man who will not (and perhaps cannot) even reveal how many children he has – will do any more for traditional, family-based values than Labour would? I found it interesting that he, and other Conservatives, responded to Labour’s plan to ditch the Married Persons Allowance in its typical amoral, neo-liberal style by highlighting the fact this would make individuals slightly less financially well-off – absolutely no mention here of the fact that this aims to further weaken the almost completely desecrated institution of marriage. That this went over the head of the “Conservative” Mr. Johnson is revealing of his dedication to conservatism.

I may, for some time, have understood why a social conservative would choose to vote for the Brexit Party, as a number of my friends will be doing. Not, however, since the release of their ‘Contract with the People’, which explains how the party hopes to ‘change politics for good’. There are certainly many problems with our political system but the House of Lords – a stronghold of rational and calm debate, in stark contrast to the inferior and more petulant house – is not one. Neither is the ‘first past the post’ voting system – the only system which enables the public to completely vote out a dead political party in an election. The proposal for referenda to become more common is also ludicrous. The last one was – and, indeed, still is – such a mess; why on earth would we want any more? So, whilst I share the Brexit Party’s desire to ‘change politics’, their blueprint for doing so is not, for me, ‘for good’.

I end with another phrase uttered so commonly to those – like myself – who refuse to vote for all of the above: ‘if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain when the government starts doing wrong’. This should surely win the stupid saying of the year award: those who vote time and time again for the parties which, already having done wrong, do nothing but further prove their incompetence and inability to listen to their voters are the ones who should be more wary of complaints in the future. Don’t allow the parties to keep doing this. If you really must vote, I suggest you put a large cross over all the parties written on your ballot paper.

Editor’s note. This blog was received before the election but is even more relevant now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

10 Comments on It doesn’t matter which party you vote for the same government always gets in.

  1. Plus que ça change …

    Chesterton and Belloc, The Party System, 1911, p. 18

    “It will be the main business of this book to inquire what is the force which not only obstructs but largely reverses the working of the representative machine, turning into an engine of oligarchy what was meant to be an organ of democracy.

    The detailed causes of this reversal will require some careful analysis ; but if the thing which makes representative institutions fail here must be expressed in a phrase, the two words which best sum it up are the ” Party System.””

  2. A week before the election I’d probably have endorsed Mr Curzon’s views, but in the end I voted for the local so-called Conservative candidate. What changed my mind was the horrific prospect of Britain’s (and Europe’s) first openly Trotsyist government. It’s true that the so-called Conservatives are a gang of dangerous anti-conservative, anti-British, anti-Christian enemies of all that is good, but there are degrees of danger, and the Jezza gang seemed to me to be much, much more dangerous than the Bozza gang. As polling day approached, the “plague on both their houses” idea seemed to me to be more and more juvenile.

    What we’ve got from the election result is a continuing gradual decline into ever-increasing horror, with a faint hope that things might get better one day. But in the end, that seemed to me to be better than instant, irreversible horror (Orwell’s “boot stamping on a human face”), and that’s why I decided to vote “Conservative”.

    As always, I stayed up all night to watch the results coming in, and I’m glad I did, because I was able to enjoy a shared moment of common humanity with somebody I’d previously regarded as scarcely a human being at all. Yes, Nicola Sturgeon and I punched the air simultaneously when the odious Jo Swinson lost her seat, and I’ll probably never be able to hate “Gnasher” quite so enthusiastically again.

  3. ‘The grammar school system was abandoned because it failed. The few working class smart kids who passed the 11 plus found that the latent effect of social class cramped their futures.’
    This is simply not true. The grammar school I attended was stuffed with working class and lower-middle class boys. The ones I befriended all went on to university or solid careers. I was very happy there, despite my rough and ready background. The school, together with its equivalent for girls, is still spoken of in the town with affection and respect.
    Grammar schools were destroyed by Socialist spite.

    • Lucky you Robert. I was practically the only one from the other side of the tracks in my year to make it to the 6th, and so offended the Jesuit masters that they gave me a damning reference that I only found out about when some years later when an admissions tutor showed me it. If it hadn’t been for the (socialist? comprehensive?) Open University I’d still be driving an HGV (possibly still without the correct licence and for the same dodgy building merchants!)

      Still. No regrets. Every time I visit the east coast via 1 in 4 Sutton Bank I say a prayer at the spot where my ill-maintained, bath-loaded truck burnt the last of its engine oil and left me staring at an impossibly distant horizon till the late evening. Nothing beats an astonishing landscape to make you think about what you should be doing with your life.

    • I think much of the problem in this country was, and still is, the all or nothing 11+ entrance exam. It’s morally wrong that a child’s future life direction should be decided by a single exam at that age; and it is educationally unjustifiable. Even in Holland, where there is a two or three-year orientation phase, in which parents, teachers and pupils together decide what sort of secondary school best suits the child, it is estimated that a quarter of children get sent to the wrong school.

      Though many children can be sorted into academic or non-academic at 11, a significant number cannot for a host of reasons. Throw in the industrial scale private tuition for the children of the middle classes, and a dumbed down grammar school curriculum for the 11+ rejects, instead of properly funded technical education, as in Holland and Germany, and the situation is made even worse.

      • Alistair Miller has it right. The grammar school is the best for those with academic ability but, for those whose talents lay elsewhere, the Secondary Modern schools were a failure and the only prospect to acquire a decent job was in industry with day-release technical education providing an alternative to shop-floor work. Although I admire Margaret Thatcher, her decision to abandon so much of the engineering industry for ‘the service industry’ condemned a section of society to jobs that are mind-numbing. The Blair creature’s remedy was to provide Christmas-cracker academic qualifications for those with little or no academic talent to fill fabricated government departments as foot-soldiers to reinforce his cultural revolution. We have seen some of the results of this in the Metropolitan Police, the N.H.S, and now the London Fire Brigade.

        • Surprised you blame Thatch for the lack of tech ed – she was said to have disparaged even history as a subject. Are you saying it was her policy? or an unintended effect of some other policy?

          Personally I think the only remedy is compulsion – every first degree, whatever the subject, to have some time in manufacturing industry or it gets no funds.

          • Dear Michael. I think that the flight of manufacturing from the west to the far east was felt most in America and Britain whose civilian-based facilities were lagging behind in technology and quality due to more than one reason but I think that Marxist union political power was at the root of the problem. Margaret Thatcher endeavoured to rationalise and save the British home car industry but inept management, gross underfunding, and Marxist union activists scuppered any hope of dragging that industry into producing a successful world product and she was faced with little alternative. Today’s car market requires huge investment beyond but a few of the giants who outsource elements of the manufacturing to cheap labour countries – the alloy wheels on my German Audi are made in China! I am not a product of a grammar school (I failed my 11+ and 13+) and was condemned to an, albeit decent, Secondary Modern where sixth-form education was available but still only academic subjects. My few talents and work experience/day release in engineering and a period in Canada provided me with the means to eventually set up my own successful business but those opportunities in industry which gave me the means are few today. It has always irked me that the condescending and sneering attitude in Britain from the 18th century-on to all levels of engineering still exists today. How many degree-level mechanical, electrical, or civil engineers are in the Commons and the Lords?

  4. Mr Curzon, your post demonstrates just what we have to be proud of in this country and on this site. You could not write such stuff in at least two thirds of the world nor could you put anything on any Labour forum that contradicted the malign agenda of the leadership.

    Just two points of detail.

    The grammar school system was abandoned because it failed. The few working class smart kids who passed the 11 plus found that the latent effect of social class cramped their futures. Those who developed later than 11, through temperament or upbringing, never got a chance. I had first hand experience of this as a grammar boy in the 1950s, but numerous longitudinal studies were carried out. Comps offer opps for all – though the academy system has taken funds from the classroom into the pockets of managerialist yahoos. I wonder that you do not comment on the dire private school system whose products in all Parties are the very people you excoriate in your article. People should be free to choose as they like for their children but it is a shame that so many who are either born nasty or acquire nastiness or have nastiness thrust upon them end up as our masters.

    Labour’s anti-Semitism is not exaggerated and is related to socialist appeasement of Islamic (socialist) tyrannies like Iran and 56 other theocratic states. Anyone with any acquaintance with the Islamic middle east knows where the blame lies for their troubles and it’s not Israel. Muslims in the region have good reason to fear their brothers, and the 20% of Israel who are citizens of the Jewish state count themselves lucky – not that the UK’s professional Muslim victims, some in the Tory party, want to know that.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Michael Curzon: It Doesn’t Matter Which Party You Vote For the Same Government Always Gets in - Technical Politics