Positively abstaining

Fearless Frank

Susan - yes, the 'none of the above' option would win many seats. But what would happen in a constituency that has elected 'none of the above'?
Can't hang around - the AGW apostles will be piling in any minute!

Noa Zrk

This is the conundrum for Conservatively minded voters. A vote for Cameron is a vote for the continuation of New Labour progressive politics. But a vote for UKIP or the BNP is, As William Hague has pointed out, strategically if not tactically, a vote for Brown.
I suspect that, by election time sufficient voters will have swallowed their suspicion and distrust of Cameron to return a Conservative government with a clear majority.
Then, if the hen in the coop is a Red Rooster it will been given short shrift by either the other hens or the foxes at a subsequent election.

Bunnykins

It's a big problem, but isn't it better to bring the Conservatives in with a majority? You may not like Cameron, and heaven help us - he could do with the vestige of a backbone - but a clear mandate from the people would at least give him the confidence to (perhaps) enforce more traditional Conservative policies.. I fear a hung Parliament would play straight into the hands of the BNP and I'd rather vote for a weak Conservative leader than risk giving that lot any power.

Nicholas

Well, to vote or not and how to vote is a very personal decision but at this stage of our history I am of the view that the needs of the country should come before personal preferences or prejudices. Much as I share many of your doubts about Cameron my purpose this time will be to vote in a way that will get New Labour out of power. We shouldn't have to. That rotten cabal should have been brought down by now for all their crimes against our people. But the playing field is not level and I am going to do nothing that is going to strengthen the New Labour elbow, however high minded the motives might be.

Most of our political discourse still refers to and treats New Labour as a legitimate political party offering an alternative way to govern. I don't.

SUSAN HILL

I agree with all the above. My vote won`t make any difference - the Tories could put a baboon up in my constituency and it would win. I wish I lived in a marginal seat. But I take the points raised about giving New Labour no possible chink through which to oil their way back in. I will ponder.

Noa Zrk

Mien Gott Nicholas.

We are in danger of converging!

SRS

A question for you, Susan, about climate change. I have heard convincing arguments on both sides of this issue, and I can imagine that your skepticism may prevail-- but what I don't understand is your conviction that there is a 'scam' at work. Who benefits from this scam? It seems to me that those who urge policy changes as a means to slowing global warming have much to lose and very little to gain from implementing those changes. I believe the jury is out on what evidence we have to support global warming, but I cannot believe there is a devious scam on anyone's part. There seems to me to be deep conviction on either side.

Ferguis Pickering

Come on SRA. Whogains from the global warming thing? Well, Al gore, a busted politician, for a strt. And that Indian novelist and free-loader, Pachauri isn't it? And the University of East Anglia, a second-rate outfit, if that. There are a whole lot of careers there. It's nice to believe everybody is sincere, but that's not the way of the world, and they ain't.

Oh Susan, get OUT more. You look at the ballot paper and decide which of them is LEAST repulsive. That's how democracy works. And it doesn't matter if your vote makes any difference. This is a symbolic thing. Vote Cameron and he MAY surprise you. By dropping dead, you never know. Vote any other way or spoil your paper and you condone the vile Brown and his horrid crew. Anything other than a vote for Cameron is a vote for the Antichrist.

SUSAN HILL

Cor. Well I can't vote for the anti-Christ. Not sure what it has to do with getting out more but as I said, I am now pondering. Never let it be said that Coffee Housers don`t have influence.

Herbert Thornton

It seems to me that there is a strong argument for having the opportunity to vote for "None of the above" - and that if those votes turn out to be the majority, then the seat for that constituency should remain vacant.

If you don't vote, it will be assumed, not that you are against any candidate, but that you merely so uninterested that you'd rather live under a dictatorship - which is closer to the actual situation than most like to recognise.

Since we can't vote for "None of the above" I suggest that the next best thing is to vote for the candidate whom you believe to be the most unlikely to be elected. That would be a stronger message than just not bothering to vote, wouldn't it?

EC

Susan, I too have never lived in a constituency where my vote has mattered a ha'penny's purchase. Most people don't. That is how the political parties perpetuate themselves and foist so many useless time-served apparatchiks demanding their 'pay day' upon us.

You can actually vote for "none of the above." You have the option to write anything you like on the ballot paper. Spoilt ballot papers are always counted and recorded.

John Bracewell

Susan,
I am in agreement with most of your article.
The problem, I have is that I am in a seat whose boundaries have changed and that might make it a marginal. My traditional Conservative thoughts dislike 'heir to Blair policies (Cameron Cuties = Blair Babes', Europe, Immigration and Climate Change. However, I may have to hold my nose and vote Conservative just to ensure that the Labour guy does not win. I could not live with the idea that I was giving any comfort to Brown and this shambles of a government. So, I know what you mean but please qualify your abstaining with a clear statement you would vote Conservative if you thought it might just matter. It might make some of us think again and ensure some setas are not thrown away to Labour.

SUSAN HILL

(Swallows hard) I would vote Conservative if I thought it would matter. Conservative rather than Cameron though.

Sarah

Actually the fact that they have softened on gay rights is precisely the kind of move which might - just - make me consider voting conservative. I don't think this is an *age* issue but a generational one. There is a correlation between being older and being less liberal, but a growing proportion of the population is supportive of gay rights, suggesting that this isn't an issue people get more conservative about as they get older - although a few may of course.

Andre

Cameron's argument has always been that the majority of British voters are centrists who tacitly support the welfare state, green issues and state intervention. He claims, so I understand, that focus groups and local associations bear this out. I am no longer so sure and like SH do not care for Cameron and modern conservatism. Is there not a space now for a Geert Wilders style pro-Israel, low tax, business in a bureaucrat-free Europe party? A party espousing the ideas of Daniel Hannan, Michael Gove and Douglas Murray? There seems no real choice in British politics currently.

SUSAN HILL

ANDRE. I don`t know where these focus groups come from but the British public is actually further right on most issues than Cameron imagines. On smaller government, less governmental interference, lower taxes,smaller public sector,immigration,higher standards of teaching and learning in schools. I never understand what 'rights' homosexuals are supposed to have and they only form 5% of the population at most, but people are generally more tolerant in this area.That, though, is a personal issue not a political one. On green issues, the wheels have fallen off global warming/climate change con but people are still keen on less waste/more recycling/less vandalism of the environment but that again is not a political issue.
Independence, working for a living, strength of the family, personal responsibilty - the traditional Conservative values - remain strong. But the fact is that Cameron will have his work cut out just repairing the economic mess we are in and if he makes green issues and homosexual rights priorities then he will last a single term. Set against the struggle people have to keep their jobs and provide for their families, and set aside the national debt, everything else pales at the moment.

Nicholas

Sarah - what are gay rights and why are they still being pursued? Are they the rights to have more say about your sexuality than other sexualities have to say about their sexualties? Why are gays, like ethnic minorities, so focussed on their identity? Shouldn't they be pursuing parity rather than predominance (BBC excluded)?

I'm not prejudiced, btw, just confused.

Bunnykins

Nicolas.....you and 99.9% of the population.

Sarah AB

@Nicholas - it's not so long ago that clause 28 was in force, stating that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". The age of consent was only equalised under Labour - who also introduced civil partnerships. I believe that most MPs in the shadow cabinet have a poor voting record in regards to gay rights. There are also issues which go beyond legislation - eg homophobic bullying. I don't think gays should aim for more than parity, no - which means I think they should be fairly represented in (for example) adverts, children's stories, films with a happy ending ....

Fearless Frank

Sarah: they should be fairly represented in (for example) adverts...
How do you know whether people in adverts are gay, straight, bi or even completely asexual?

Sarah AB

Frank - ok, fair enough - I probably do assume that two women having a drink (in an ad) are just friends/colleagues - whereas I'd assume a man and a woman were a couple! But I'm pretty sure that in ads where there is an unambiguously sexual/family relationship the couple is (almost) invariably heterosexual.

Nicholas

Sarah AB, thank you for that clarification. But where do you draw the line at ensuring representation for sexual orientation - or, indeed other orientations in the transient propaganda of advertising? As it stands the movement seems to suggest that homosexuality is more important to represent than some other sexualities or orientations. Each minority group now clamours to have itself fairly represented and protected. I suspect the result may be increased resentment and prejudice from those already so inclined whilst the tolerant just remain perplexed by the fuss. Personally I don't think any sexuality should be "promoted" - I think it is largely a private and personal matter between consenting adults and a matter for choice which the authorities should stay out of. Of course what has happened is that New Labour's convaluted and partisan approach to legislation has led to all sorts of paradox, unintended consequences and legislative complexities.

Does it really matter if an advert shows a heterosexual relationship without including a homosexual one? What about age? The ageism in BBC TV programmes (apart from a few "national treasures") is almost obscene but is there a "Grey Rights" movement? Perhaps there should be - I might join it.

This clamouring pressure strikes me as essentially narcissistic and probably counter-productive.

As for homophobic bullying - isn't that the same as any other bullying? It is bullying which is detestable - not the motive.

Fergus Pickering

But sarah AB, most people are heterosexual, which is just as well, isn't it? I am very interested in poetry but most people aren't and I don't ask for poetry lovers to be represented in advertisements. A word to the wise - the best a mionority can expect is to be LEFT ALONE. You can't expect to be celebrated and/or congratulated. A minority of people, perhaps a minority as big as the total population of gays, consider gayness to be reprehensible. The best thing to do is to live with it. If they beat you up or even if they cat-call at you in the street, then I will do my best to see that they suffer the rigours of the law. I think youger people tend IN THE MAIN to be more on your side than older people. If that is so, then time will put things right, won't it?

Bill Rees

Susan, as an occasional visitor to this site, I usually try to read your blog posts, and I empathise with your thoughts on many issues.
But in this article you begin with an illogical statement and then you construct an argument on that false premise.
"For all my voting life my mark has carried no weight because I have always lived in a safe seat."
Many people make this point, but it is silly and illogical. Your vote carries just as much 'weight' as any other vote, no matter where you live. The fact that a Conservative may win easily in your constituency probably reflects the fact that you are able to live in a high-value area, and that the combined weight of your votes and others in the constituency favour the Conservatives.
Do you think that your vote should somehow count for more than everyone else's?
In reality, it's very important for the Labour Party to be totally eclipsed nationally. We need to throw this discredited government out with a resounding national vote, and therefore to not vote is to willingly state that you really can't decide between any of the parties (even including Labour and the BNP!).
Is that true for you? Don't forget that you are not voting for Cameron, but for the Conservative Party and hopefully for conservative policies.
That's why your comment that: "I regard my abstention as a declaration as strong as a pencilled cross on the paper" is nonsense too.
Like you, I don't go for much of what seems to be Cameron's agenda. But the important thing that I think a lot of people miss is the battle that Cameron will have to fight, not just against the Labour Party, which will still be a fierce fighting machine, but also the establishment in the form of the BBC, which, by and large, still supports Brown, and will slant news and current affairs in his favour partly because it sympathises with him and his policies, and partly out of a sense of self-preservation.
And yet this man has created a financial maelstrom that any future Prime Minister and Chancellor will have great difficulty extracting us from. Our grandchildren have such a financial noose around their necks that it really should make us worry for the future of our country.
Cameron may not be ideal, but he is the best hope we have right now, and I'm afraid that to refrain from voting in these circumstances would be the ultimate act of self-indulgence.
And, from what I can make out of your character, it is one that you would come to regret.
Sorry to be so direct.

SUSAN HILL

Bill Rees.... I am a Yorkshirewoman I value directness. Not rudeness, but you were not rude. SO it's fine. I suppose what I mean is that if for whatever reason I did not vote the Conservatives would still have a huge majority in my constituency - minus one. But that one vote might all the difference in a marginal -literally between a labour MP and a Tory one.
Sarah. People on here are right you know. Sexuality is not a public matter let alone a political one though it may be a legal one - as in the protection of children. Otherwise,'rights' ? What 'rights' ? 5% of people are homosexual which leaves 95% of the rest of us. I have no wish to crush homosexuals into submission or have them altered, but I also have no wish to see their sexuality over-promoted and over-emphasised. Minorities have gone from wanting a legitimate voice and not to be crushed, to demanding to be heard over and above and before everyone else. I am not interested in whether someone is homosexual or not, it's their business. I do not wish to have it shoved in my face/down my throat in every context though.
And a truer word was never spoken about bullying - which I often prefer to call unkindness or even cruelty, to bring home what it actually is. No form of bullying is worse than any other form though one bully may be more extreme than the next. It is in itself a pernicious, immoral and hurtful.
The word 'homophobic' is as misused as the word 'denier' too. A friend has archnaephobia - she is terified of spiders, hates them, they make her ill, she cannot be in a house let alone a room, with a spider. She needs treatment. That is a phobia.

Sarah AB

@Nicholas - I don't precisely think any sexuality should be 'promoted' and I think it would be rather skewed if there were as many gay as straight couples on our screens. But I've *never* come across a representation of a homosexual character/couple in any children's book - obviously there are lots of characters whose sexuality is not relevant so not apparent. I assume that, in Clause 28 days, reading school children some sort of gay equivalent of Cinderella would have been seen as 'promoting' homosexuality. So it could be argued that heterosexuality is 'promoted' around us all the time - whereas if there is a film about gays (such as Brokeback Mountain) it's a subject for discussion. Age is a different issue - which might indeed inspire similar arguments about the nature/degree of representation on screen. I'm not sure about your comment about narcissism - a fault often ascribed to homosexuals ... Is it really 'narcissistic' just to stick up for yourself whether it's against homophobia or sexism, racism or whatever.

@Fergus - I should I think clarify - I'm not gay! It depends what you mean by 'left alone' - I'm not sure it *is* enough just, grudgingly, to be allowed to exist - why shouldn't gays be more fully represented and acknowledged in all aspects of our cultural life?

Sarah AB

"People on here are right you know." That's a little patronising! I don't expect to be in the majority on this one at the Spectator, of course. I don't think one sort of bullying is worse than another - but if the culture is hostile or (as Susan is here) grudging towards homosexuality then the bullies are going to feel more confident about pursuing their activities. I understand that, when Clause 28 was in force, teachers felt inhibited about actively protecting children from such bullying - I assume actual violence would have caused people to step in but even verbal bullying can lead young people to despair. I agree that 'homophobia' isn't the ideal word - 'antisemitism' is also vaguely problematic if you start to unpick it - but, as the words have passed into common use, these are just semantic quibbles.

Nicholas

Sarah AB - "narcissistic" was probably not the appropriate word as I was using it in respect of the identified group obsessively looking in on itself rather than as it being a fault of the homosexual individual. On that score there are plenty of narcissistic heterosexuals - many, many more now than when I was a young man. There are many aspects to each individual's life including their sexuality but I think that to make an all consuming cause out of just one of them is not particularly healthy. A lot of single issue causes verge on "militant", especially in their reaction to those who legitimately disagree with them, and I am suspicious of all of them, not least because the majority of them seem to encompass a strong leftist orientation too.

Quite right that one should want to stick up for oneself but I think that is a different thing, beyond the pursuit of causes and the manipulation of language. Just as one should have the right to pursue one's own sexuality if it does no harm to others, one should have the right to dislike or even express contempt for another lifestyle without being criminalised for it. After all, look how much scorn is shown to trainspotters, say, but it is not (yet) a hate crime. Trying to legislate for all concerns, all fears, all groups is the path to dystopia, where "correct thinking" is promulgated from the centre. That is New Labour's tinkering, the work of dangerous deviants like Jack Straw, and I think it is almost 100% counter productive. A blunt instrument and a not very effective one.

Summer

Sarah, you just do not live in the real world, but rather some mythical utopia.

I find the thought of homosexual practices, unpleasant; that is because I am hetrosexual, not because of any moral judgement. So, that is why advertisers will tend not to be obvious in depicting people who are gay - unless they want to attract that market.

Bullying is bullying and should be dealt with appropriately.

Homosexuality is not normal and I don't think young children should be confused by it, they can learn about it when they are of an age. And, I am very against homosexual couples adopting children - adopted children should have the best for them and that is hetrosexual parents. If homosexual people have their own children that is their business.

I do understand the reason for Civil Partnerships and am sure they have brought happiness to people. I don't agree with the stance that many religions, especially Islam, take on homosexuality - but then I have never looked at why, which might be revealing. I do have gay friends and don't treat them any differently to my hetrosexual ones.

As for homophobia, I have no clear idea what it means - it could mean finding homosexual practices distasteful (quite acceptable), to calling for all homosexuals to be killed (not acceptable)!! Where as I am quite clear that antisemitism is - to choose to show unwarrented hatred to Jews because they are Jews.

Anyone who demands rights from others, also has responsibilities. And the biggest responsibility is to create a healthy society - perhaps homosexuals should think about their responsibilities more!!

hadrian

Your fellow blogger, Mel Phillips, has written a very entertaining and poignant account of Mrs Pankhurst which I recommend to all.