A world financial crisis. The constant threat of foreign and domestic terrorism. Controversial immigration. A battle between traditional and modern sources of energy. Troops engaged in battle in far-flung corners of the world. Social and familial breakdowns. This is no ordinary British election.
Every so often the populations of world democracies find themselves standing at a pivotal precipice. In the United Kingdom, on Thursday 6 May 2010, the British public will take part in the most important general election in a generation. Never has politics and democracy been so pertinently relevant to the people of Britain. Rarely has a campaign been so unpredictable, so controversial. For the first time in recent memory, a genuine third choice has emerged in the form of Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats. Inspiring in his articulate debating style, Clegg’s rise to fame has been as aspirational as it was unlikely, and with it the political landscape as we know it has been permanently altered.
In 1997, Tony Blair famously uttered that ‘there is a third way’. He referred, of course, to internal Labour party struggles, the divisions between his vision for the future of the party, and the old unionist version that he wanted to consign to the scrapheap of history. Today, in an unpredictable and fragile twenty-first century, the third way is not internalised within a particular party structure, but instead presents itself on the ballot paper; a referendum, if you will, not just on who should become our governing party, but on the future of our politics, of our society. While this writer is not necessarily convinced by Liberal Democrat policies, it is clear that politics has renewed itself, that our ability to choose and be inspired has dramatically increased, that there is cause for optimism amidst the gloom and despair of recent times.
It is of vital importance, then, that each of us takes part on Thursday. Over the course of many centuries, this country has paved a road towards universal suffrage, a world leader in fighting for each person’s right to have their say, to raise their voice, to make a difference. To walk to your polling station, to strike an ‘x’ next to your preferred candidate, is the very definition of a display of individual liberty. At a time when our trust in politicians is at a nadir, it is still important to maintain faith in the overriding values of our democracy, and indeed of our country; ideals of free markets and free people, social cohesion and responsibility, duty and fairness. There is, after all, much to be optimistic about. Despite our financial and social troubles, this is still a wonderful place to live. The political commentator Andrew Marr once said that to be born British is in fact a remarkable stroke of luck. We may have a budget deficit, but this is still a nation with a welfare state, with magnificent cities, famous cultural icons, free access to healthcare, a military to be proud of, and a multicultural haven for people from all over the world seeking opportunity and freedom, strong civic and legal justice and tolerance.
Despite the ideological flavour of the prose, this is not an American-style election, despite David Cameron and Nick Clegg repeatedly using the Obama mantra of ‘change’. In my mind, no candidate in this election is seriously bending the arc of history once more toward the hope of a better day. There is no grassroots movement shaking down the traditionalist walls of the political establishment, despite our obvious annoyance at the behaviour of many politicians. No. This is a very British election. We debate with a civilised politeness. We resist political subterfuge. We travel across half the country to apologise to pensioners. The candidate who preaches most about change, about establishing a new order, is in fact a public schoolboy from the upper middle class. His name is Nick Clegg.
What this campaign has really demonstrated, has really illustrated to our nation, is that in 2010 we are not certain of our place in the world and how we want to be perceived. Should we look solely to Europe? Should we preserve our special relationship with America? Should we retreat completely, bruised and battered by our forays into global politics over many decades of engagement under leaders like Thatcher and Blair? It seems to this author that Britain must somehow strike a balance between all these issues. We are stronger when we engage with Europe, but not to the extent that we pander to its beaurocratic web of confusion. We are more relevant when we work closely with America, though never again should we let the White House dominate Downing Street over where we send our troops without so much as an iota of support when we have our own foreign issues to deal with. We are more stable when we concentrate on home affairs, knowing that we can only really offer a voice of progress in the world at large when we have cohesion and social advancement at home.
Given that these are the issues which both unite and divide us, which party seems most aligned to the obvious solutions? While the partisan amongst you will cling steadfastly to your views and decisions, many of us remain unsure, cautious of pinning our political colours to the mast, preferring to wait until the last possible moment before making our date with electoral destiny. The polls reflect our uncertainty. The make up of our parliament hangs in the balance. Quite literally.
Not every aspect of the Labour party’s thirteen years in power has been bad for this country. Though success has been limited more specifically to the Blair years, the new Labour experiment has, for the most part, been positive. Boom and bust may now be the catch-phrase of our catch-22 economic downturn, but at the least it helped establish the City of London’s Square Mile as the preeminent financial and legal district of the world. Labour liberated the Bank of England, legalised civil partnerships, abolished cruel and archaic fox-hunting, engaged in wars of ethics in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, brought Northern Ireland towards peace and modern political acquiescence, cut NHS waiting times (just) and got more young people into universities (perhaps too many). Tony Blair, rightly or wrongly, managed to cement Britain’s role in the contemporary arena of international affairs. The Blair-Brown years coincided with a revolution in British cultural sensibilities. ‘Cool Britannia’ dominated the worlds of fashion and cuisine, film and theatre, music and architecture. London grew not just as an economic powerhouse, but equally attracted a global significance last seen at the height of the British Empire, on par with New York as a true city of the modern age.
Whether Gordon Brown clings on to the keys of 10 Downing Street after Thursday or not, it is hard for even staunch critics of New Labour to forcibly argue that the United Kingdom is, at least on a societal level, worse off than it was at the end of John Major’s premiership in 1997. However, a closer look beyond the PR and the spin indicates that Labour have not properly capitalised on three terms of impressive parliamentary majorities. Socially our communities remain divided, caught in a crossfire of claims and counterclaims, mutual suspicion and distrust, waylaid by council beurocracy and paperwork, underfunded or overpaid, too readily interfered with by the meddling hands of the neurotic central government and incapable of reaching out to those in society most in need of help. As a result we have, as Bobby Kennedy once warned, a number of cities that are not communities, of counties that are not locally connected, of ethnic, national and class groups who have been allowed to wallow in their resentment for too long.
No part of this Labour government’s election campaign has inspired any confidence that another five years of Gordon Brown will enhance ordinary life on the streets of our towns and cities. While the big institutions and offices of state may well find themselves basking in the glow of short-term public spending, little will filter through to local councils and youth workers and community activists, the sparks in the engine of our country. Over the past thirteen years, Britain has consolidated and enhanced its position as a world power, yet at the same time has become incapable of mending its own broken society. Gordon Brown’s current politics of fear will not save his party, and nor should it. We need a strong Opposition, a solid and dependable critic to bring the government consistently and appropriately to account. Only Labour’s defeat will achieve this, offering a movement with high ideals and poor execution the chance to undergo its first leadership election since 1994, replacing the static, stoic, stolid and stunted Gordon Brown with a better, younger, idealistic alternative. Labour could become the party for the masses once again if it undergoes an intensive reboot during a much-needed period of time on the other side of the House of Commons aisle. David Milliband would be an exciting and attractive prospect leading Labour into the general election of 2015.
What of Clegg’s Liberal Democrats, the surprise contenders punching above their weight as we head to the polls? No doubt he is a deeply intelligent political player, adept at feeding on populist sensibilities and providing neat soundbites for the media. Skilled at public relations and slick electioneering, Clegg has drilled the Lib Dems into a campaigning machine, full of the slights of hand and subtleties of Tony Blair in his pomp, positioning his party as a new option to replace the old guard of tired policies representing antiquated politicians. These are the natural reactions to Clegg’s outstanding performances in the Prime Ministerial debates, as he neatly sidestepped real scrutiny over a number of dangerous and poorly explained policies by sounding and looking modern and relevant, and by continually articulating a message of difference to his two opponents. The reality, much as it pains this author to admit it, is that Nick Clegg resembles a rather earnest sixth form student, anxious to impress at a Model United Nations conference and to tell us what he would do if he was a Prefect. This writer would love to be a Clegg supporter, and would enjoy his rise to prominence a lot more, if he could match substantive and intelligent policies with his already obviously impressive style of politicking.
However, his positions on Europe, on our nuclear deterrent, on a frankly bizarre system of geographically positioning immigrants into specific skill-set locations, are beyond the acceptable limit of pandering populism. These are the manifesto hallmarks of a group of politicians who simply had not considered seriously the fact that they might be genuine players in this election. Their own wealthy benefactors must be shuddering at the thought of a 50% tax hike. Investors in the City of London who had previously appeared to be supporters of Clegg must be anxiously looking at mainland Europe’s inability to aid Greece, itself a member of the Euro currency club, at a time when the Liberal Democrats continue to make positive noises about the UK joining the single coinage. Moreover, while Clegg’s desire to see a nuclear free Britain taking an active role in a nuclear free world should be lauded, his idealism is dangerous. The complete removal from planet Earth of all nuclear weapons would be wonderful. Never again would mankind stare into the abyss of annihilation at the behest of our warheads. Every serious political player who wants to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain should be forthright and immediate in working hard to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to gradually reduce the stockpiles of the nuclear club. There are, however, safe ways to do this, and Nick Clegg’s policy of unilaterally not renewing Trident, our own nuclear deterrent, is not only reactionary; it is counter-productive. The sight of a British Prime Minister signing away the UK’s nuclear capabilities at a time when rogue states are continuing to develop their technology of terror and terrorists themselves are closer to getting their warped minds and hands on a dirty bomb will not cause other nations to follow suit. Instead we will be reduced to bit-part players in the vital global struggle to reduce our arms, no longer relevant or significant or even sure of our UN Security Council position and influence to shape the world in the way that we would like to see it become for generations to follow us. Nick Clegg may be the most earnest and hazardous man in Britain.
Which leaves us with David Cameron and the Conservatives. Does anybody want to actually vote Conservative? It seems that every time an ‘x’ is marked next to a Tory candidate it is etched with a heavy heart, a resignation to settle for it in this election. Hardly a ringing mandate. Yet it was never trendy to vote Conservative, and perhaps Cameron has done more than most Conservative politicians to make his party acceptable and relevant and electable once again. Michael Howard, the former leader of the party, ran a campaign in 2005 that played on fear and social divisions and pandered to a hardcore Tory base of right-wing snobs. Thank goodness for the Conservatives and the country at large that Cameron has brought the party kicking and screaming into the modern age, callously cajoling its traditionalist powerbase into abandoning age-old entrenched ideologies and policies that were rooted in aristocratic entitlement and an indifference to change. He may be an Eton toff, but at least Cameron understands modern Britain, how our society has changed so indelibly in the past ten years, and why the voting public are more discerning than ever before. His decision to begin public spending cuts immediately upon winning an election, rather than Gordon Brown’s policy of continued public spending for another year to secure our financial recovery, is the key policy issue and difference at this election, even if other philosophies and national moods dominate headlines. Whether he is right remains to be seen, but there is something persuasive in Cameron’s steadfast commitment to starting the process of managing our budget deficit rather than leaving it for another year. It means, of course, potentially unimaginable hardship for many of us, including rising unemployment and the failure of many businesses. Yet it may be our only hope, and at the very least gets the unfortunate process started faster and sooner than Gordon Brown’s options.
It is also clear that Cameron has forged a new wing of his party, one of social modernity and liberalism, where traditional free-market values are maintained, but this time played out against a more concerted attempt from the party machine to understand the sensibilities of the modern British citizen: compassionate, pluralist, forward-thinking. Cameron’s economic policy seems drastic, but he has skilfully portrayed it as optimistic, as the best option to make the economy, and thus our country, better. At a time of uncertainty, of momentous sea-changes of emotion and practicality, as our city streets reverberate to fearful messages of hard times to come, it is no bad thing, in this election and at this pivotal time, to vote for the candidate and party that has campaigned on optimism and positivity and faith in how great our nation is and can be.
These are but one ordinary voting citizen’s musings. The real beauty in our democracy is that the ultimate decision is down to you. This really is the most important British general election in a generation, and the voting sensibilities of the great British public will secure either a decisive victory for one party above any other, or alternatively deliver a verdict of minority uncertainty, of a parliament balanced in its seat proportions but unbalanced in how it can ever get anything done. Should we be concerned by a hung parliament, by the people delivering a verdict in keeping with the prevalent feeling of simply not being sure? I believe not. Democracy, in its infinite wisdom, will find a way.
Across the world many national populations will be envious of the opportunity before us, of the chance to walk into a polling station and cast a vote, the thrill and honour of taking part in having a say, making a difference, being counted. Politics may bring out the worst in people, but our engagement in the process can still bring out the best in politics, and while so much of the world covets what we take for granted, and while our own future is so delicately poised, it is a near categorical imperative to go out and vote.
We will soon discover what Britain we will live in for the next few years in an already tumultuous century. Have your say. Casting a vote in an election is a gift: it is our present and affects our future. The UK must awake, arise and decide.
“You have a decision to make. Don't vote for us because you think we're perfect. Don't vote for us because of what we might be able to do for you only. Vote for the person who shares your ideals. Your hopes. Your dreams. Vote for the person who most embodies what you believe we need to keep our nation strong and free. And when you have done that you can go back home with your head held high and say, 'I voted.’” Matt Santos in ‘The West Wing’.
Every so often the populations of world democracies find themselves standing at a pivotal precipice. In the United Kingdom, on Thursday 6 May 2010, the British public will take part in the most important general election in a generation. Never has politics and democracy been so pertinently relevant to the people of Britain. Rarely has a campaign been so unpredictable, so controversial. For the first time in recent memory, a genuine third choice has emerged in the form of Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats. Inspiring in his articulate debating style, Clegg’s rise to fame has been as aspirational as it was unlikely, and with it the political landscape as we know it has been permanently altered.
In 1997, Tony Blair famously uttered that ‘there is a third way’. He referred, of course, to internal Labour party struggles, the divisions between his vision for the future of the party, and the old unionist version that he wanted to consign to the scrapheap of history. Today, in an unpredictable and fragile twenty-first century, the third way is not internalised within a particular party structure, but instead presents itself on the ballot paper; a referendum, if you will, not just on who should become our governing party, but on the future of our politics, of our society. While this writer is not necessarily convinced by Liberal Democrat policies, it is clear that politics has renewed itself, that our ability to choose and be inspired has dramatically increased, that there is cause for optimism amidst the gloom and despair of recent times.
It is of vital importance, then, that each of us takes part on Thursday. Over the course of many centuries, this country has paved a road towards universal suffrage, a world leader in fighting for each person’s right to have their say, to raise their voice, to make a difference. To walk to your polling station, to strike an ‘x’ next to your preferred candidate, is the very definition of a display of individual liberty. At a time when our trust in politicians is at a nadir, it is still important to maintain faith in the overriding values of our democracy, and indeed of our country; ideals of free markets and free people, social cohesion and responsibility, duty and fairness. There is, after all, much to be optimistic about. Despite our financial and social troubles, this is still a wonderful place to live. The political commentator Andrew Marr once said that to be born British is in fact a remarkable stroke of luck. We may have a budget deficit, but this is still a nation with a welfare state, with magnificent cities, famous cultural icons, free access to healthcare, a military to be proud of, and a multicultural haven for people from all over the world seeking opportunity and freedom, strong civic and legal justice and tolerance.
Despite the ideological flavour of the prose, this is not an American-style election, despite David Cameron and Nick Clegg repeatedly using the Obama mantra of ‘change’. In my mind, no candidate in this election is seriously bending the arc of history once more toward the hope of a better day. There is no grassroots movement shaking down the traditionalist walls of the political establishment, despite our obvious annoyance at the behaviour of many politicians. No. This is a very British election. We debate with a civilised politeness. We resist political subterfuge. We travel across half the country to apologise to pensioners. The candidate who preaches most about change, about establishing a new order, is in fact a public schoolboy from the upper middle class. His name is Nick Clegg.
What this campaign has really demonstrated, has really illustrated to our nation, is that in 2010 we are not certain of our place in the world and how we want to be perceived. Should we look solely to Europe? Should we preserve our special relationship with America? Should we retreat completely, bruised and battered by our forays into global politics over many decades of engagement under leaders like Thatcher and Blair? It seems to this author that Britain must somehow strike a balance between all these issues. We are stronger when we engage with Europe, but not to the extent that we pander to its beaurocratic web of confusion. We are more relevant when we work closely with America, though never again should we let the White House dominate Downing Street over where we send our troops without so much as an iota of support when we have our own foreign issues to deal with. We are more stable when we concentrate on home affairs, knowing that we can only really offer a voice of progress in the world at large when we have cohesion and social advancement at home.
Given that these are the issues which both unite and divide us, which party seems most aligned to the obvious solutions? While the partisan amongst you will cling steadfastly to your views and decisions, many of us remain unsure, cautious of pinning our political colours to the mast, preferring to wait until the last possible moment before making our date with electoral destiny. The polls reflect our uncertainty. The make up of our parliament hangs in the balance. Quite literally.
Not every aspect of the Labour party’s thirteen years in power has been bad for this country. Though success has been limited more specifically to the Blair years, the new Labour experiment has, for the most part, been positive. Boom and bust may now be the catch-phrase of our catch-22 economic downturn, but at the least it helped establish the City of London’s Square Mile as the preeminent financial and legal district of the world. Labour liberated the Bank of England, legalised civil partnerships, abolished cruel and archaic fox-hunting, engaged in wars of ethics in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, brought Northern Ireland towards peace and modern political acquiescence, cut NHS waiting times (just) and got more young people into universities (perhaps too many). Tony Blair, rightly or wrongly, managed to cement Britain’s role in the contemporary arena of international affairs. The Blair-Brown years coincided with a revolution in British cultural sensibilities. ‘Cool Britannia’ dominated the worlds of fashion and cuisine, film and theatre, music and architecture. London grew not just as an economic powerhouse, but equally attracted a global significance last seen at the height of the British Empire, on par with New York as a true city of the modern age.
Whether Gordon Brown clings on to the keys of 10 Downing Street after Thursday or not, it is hard for even staunch critics of New Labour to forcibly argue that the United Kingdom is, at least on a societal level, worse off than it was at the end of John Major’s premiership in 1997. However, a closer look beyond the PR and the spin indicates that Labour have not properly capitalised on three terms of impressive parliamentary majorities. Socially our communities remain divided, caught in a crossfire of claims and counterclaims, mutual suspicion and distrust, waylaid by council beurocracy and paperwork, underfunded or overpaid, too readily interfered with by the meddling hands of the neurotic central government and incapable of reaching out to those in society most in need of help. As a result we have, as Bobby Kennedy once warned, a number of cities that are not communities, of counties that are not locally connected, of ethnic, national and class groups who have been allowed to wallow in their resentment for too long.
No part of this Labour government’s election campaign has inspired any confidence that another five years of Gordon Brown will enhance ordinary life on the streets of our towns and cities. While the big institutions and offices of state may well find themselves basking in the glow of short-term public spending, little will filter through to local councils and youth workers and community activists, the sparks in the engine of our country. Over the past thirteen years, Britain has consolidated and enhanced its position as a world power, yet at the same time has become incapable of mending its own broken society. Gordon Brown’s current politics of fear will not save his party, and nor should it. We need a strong Opposition, a solid and dependable critic to bring the government consistently and appropriately to account. Only Labour’s defeat will achieve this, offering a movement with high ideals and poor execution the chance to undergo its first leadership election since 1994, replacing the static, stoic, stolid and stunted Gordon Brown with a better, younger, idealistic alternative. Labour could become the party for the masses once again if it undergoes an intensive reboot during a much-needed period of time on the other side of the House of Commons aisle. David Milliband would be an exciting and attractive prospect leading Labour into the general election of 2015.
What of Clegg’s Liberal Democrats, the surprise contenders punching above their weight as we head to the polls? No doubt he is a deeply intelligent political player, adept at feeding on populist sensibilities and providing neat soundbites for the media. Skilled at public relations and slick electioneering, Clegg has drilled the Lib Dems into a campaigning machine, full of the slights of hand and subtleties of Tony Blair in his pomp, positioning his party as a new option to replace the old guard of tired policies representing antiquated politicians. These are the natural reactions to Clegg’s outstanding performances in the Prime Ministerial debates, as he neatly sidestepped real scrutiny over a number of dangerous and poorly explained policies by sounding and looking modern and relevant, and by continually articulating a message of difference to his two opponents. The reality, much as it pains this author to admit it, is that Nick Clegg resembles a rather earnest sixth form student, anxious to impress at a Model United Nations conference and to tell us what he would do if he was a Prefect. This writer would love to be a Clegg supporter, and would enjoy his rise to prominence a lot more, if he could match substantive and intelligent policies with his already obviously impressive style of politicking.
However, his positions on Europe, on our nuclear deterrent, on a frankly bizarre system of geographically positioning immigrants into specific skill-set locations, are beyond the acceptable limit of pandering populism. These are the manifesto hallmarks of a group of politicians who simply had not considered seriously the fact that they might be genuine players in this election. Their own wealthy benefactors must be shuddering at the thought of a 50% tax hike. Investors in the City of London who had previously appeared to be supporters of Clegg must be anxiously looking at mainland Europe’s inability to aid Greece, itself a member of the Euro currency club, at a time when the Liberal Democrats continue to make positive noises about the UK joining the single coinage. Moreover, while Clegg’s desire to see a nuclear free Britain taking an active role in a nuclear free world should be lauded, his idealism is dangerous. The complete removal from planet Earth of all nuclear weapons would be wonderful. Never again would mankind stare into the abyss of annihilation at the behest of our warheads. Every serious political player who wants to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain should be forthright and immediate in working hard to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to gradually reduce the stockpiles of the nuclear club. There are, however, safe ways to do this, and Nick Clegg’s policy of unilaterally not renewing Trident, our own nuclear deterrent, is not only reactionary; it is counter-productive. The sight of a British Prime Minister signing away the UK’s nuclear capabilities at a time when rogue states are continuing to develop their technology of terror and terrorists themselves are closer to getting their warped minds and hands on a dirty bomb will not cause other nations to follow suit. Instead we will be reduced to bit-part players in the vital global struggle to reduce our arms, no longer relevant or significant or even sure of our UN Security Council position and influence to shape the world in the way that we would like to see it become for generations to follow us. Nick Clegg may be the most earnest and hazardous man in Britain.
Which leaves us with David Cameron and the Conservatives. Does anybody want to actually vote Conservative? It seems that every time an ‘x’ is marked next to a Tory candidate it is etched with a heavy heart, a resignation to settle for it in this election. Hardly a ringing mandate. Yet it was never trendy to vote Conservative, and perhaps Cameron has done more than most Conservative politicians to make his party acceptable and relevant and electable once again. Michael Howard, the former leader of the party, ran a campaign in 2005 that played on fear and social divisions and pandered to a hardcore Tory base of right-wing snobs. Thank goodness for the Conservatives and the country at large that Cameron has brought the party kicking and screaming into the modern age, callously cajoling its traditionalist powerbase into abandoning age-old entrenched ideologies and policies that were rooted in aristocratic entitlement and an indifference to change. He may be an Eton toff, but at least Cameron understands modern Britain, how our society has changed so indelibly in the past ten years, and why the voting public are more discerning than ever before. His decision to begin public spending cuts immediately upon winning an election, rather than Gordon Brown’s policy of continued public spending for another year to secure our financial recovery, is the key policy issue and difference at this election, even if other philosophies and national moods dominate headlines. Whether he is right remains to be seen, but there is something persuasive in Cameron’s steadfast commitment to starting the process of managing our budget deficit rather than leaving it for another year. It means, of course, potentially unimaginable hardship for many of us, including rising unemployment and the failure of many businesses. Yet it may be our only hope, and at the very least gets the unfortunate process started faster and sooner than Gordon Brown’s options.
It is also clear that Cameron has forged a new wing of his party, one of social modernity and liberalism, where traditional free-market values are maintained, but this time played out against a more concerted attempt from the party machine to understand the sensibilities of the modern British citizen: compassionate, pluralist, forward-thinking. Cameron’s economic policy seems drastic, but he has skilfully portrayed it as optimistic, as the best option to make the economy, and thus our country, better. At a time of uncertainty, of momentous sea-changes of emotion and practicality, as our city streets reverberate to fearful messages of hard times to come, it is no bad thing, in this election and at this pivotal time, to vote for the candidate and party that has campaigned on optimism and positivity and faith in how great our nation is and can be.
These are but one ordinary voting citizen’s musings. The real beauty in our democracy is that the ultimate decision is down to you. This really is the most important British general election in a generation, and the voting sensibilities of the great British public will secure either a decisive victory for one party above any other, or alternatively deliver a verdict of minority uncertainty, of a parliament balanced in its seat proportions but unbalanced in how it can ever get anything done. Should we be concerned by a hung parliament, by the people delivering a verdict in keeping with the prevalent feeling of simply not being sure? I believe not. Democracy, in its infinite wisdom, will find a way.
Across the world many national populations will be envious of the opportunity before us, of the chance to walk into a polling station and cast a vote, the thrill and honour of taking part in having a say, making a difference, being counted. Politics may bring out the worst in people, but our engagement in the process can still bring out the best in politics, and while so much of the world covets what we take for granted, and while our own future is so delicately poised, it is a near categorical imperative to go out and vote.
We will soon discover what Britain we will live in for the next few years in an already tumultuous century. Have your say. Casting a vote in an election is a gift: it is our present and affects our future. The UK must awake, arise and decide.
“You have a decision to make. Don't vote for us because you think we're perfect. Don't vote for us because of what we might be able to do for you only. Vote for the person who shares your ideals. Your hopes. Your dreams. Vote for the person who most embodies what you believe we need to keep our nation strong and free. And when you have done that you can go back home with your head held high and say, 'I voted.’” Matt Santos in ‘The West Wing’.
No comments:
Post a Comment