Tuesday, 6 June 2017

JUST A THOUGHT - THE VOTER'S DILEMMA : WHO OR WHICH PARTY SHOULD I VOTE FOR? PART 3.





'At times of political elections, the advantage can be taken by that party which is able to set the agenda and best argue 'what are the things which the nation should be most concerned about. And how best to address them, and causes the masses to accept and feel euphoric about its weltschauung, even though it might not be achievable.'


And what happens when the voter is deliberating on which political party he/she should vote for? 

Is he/she swayed by the issues which most affect them, e.g., if they are unemployed, or are students concerned about getting or repaying student loan?  

Or an elderly and frail person resident in or awaiting a vacancy in a residential care or nursing home? 

Or a chronically sick person on the waiting list for routine or major operation? 

Will such voters opt for the party that is promising more money for student loans, or the return to student grants? 

Or more money for the national health service, and the raising of the threshold before you start paying for you care in a nursing home?

Or will many votes give greater priority to foreign policy issues? Such as Brexit, or the country's relationship with countries such as Saudi Arabia, and to the West's policy of military adventurism in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia? 

Will the electorate want to take a chance on the Labour Party?


Of course, whichever party the electorate vote for, there will still be the issue of which, if any, of their promises they will carry out. 


It was just today that I had the opportunity of watching how stressful the exercise of deciding who to vote for can become. 

For the discerning voter, as opposed to those whose loyalty for their preferred party is unwavering and unconditional. 

Which is not necessarily an appealing quality for a 21st Century voter, in our political consumeristic society. 

Why, asked the prospective voter, is the candidate for the party of my choice, at the end of the form, and not at the top. 

An observation which led me to contemplate whether said voter is insinuating that their is a conspiracy taking place in the order in which the candidates have been listed. 


Of course, said the prospective voter, after you vote them in, they do not do anything. 

Not an observation I wanted to challenge, even though I am aware that many of them will carry out some of their promises, partially, if not completely.

You see, the electorate, with regards to their political weltschauung, might assume the mindset of a young child relating to his/her parents. 

So, when it comes to their/our reaction to our politicians keeping or not keeping 'their promises.' We do not activate our rational powers of analysis and objectively ascertain the merits of their reasons for doing so. 

No. Instead, like a child berating their parents for 'not keeping their promise', to, say, take them to nirvana.  Probably because they do not have the money to do so, or because nirvana does not really exist, outside of Buddhist philosophy, we just label them as being untrusworthy, unreliable.

After all, are politicians and politics politics not a profession without honour?

To be continued.





No comments: