Wednesday, 24 October 2007

"The voter was treated as an afterthought"


To the surprise of precisely no-one, the Gould report into the Scottish election fiasco (pdf) points the finger of blame in all directions, but primarily at ministers - ie Douglas Alexander, who was in charge. Emphasis is mine:

What is characteristic of 2007 was a notable level of party self interest evident in Ministerial decision-making (especially in regard to the timing and method of counts and the design of ballot papers). [...]

Ministers will always need to take some decisions on elements of electoral administration. However, as in other areas of public life, these can and should be taken with the voters’ interests as the primary objective, supported by publicly available professional and expert advice. This appears not to have been the case in 2007. [...]

Almost without exception, the voter was treated as an afterthought by virtually all the other stakeholders. Numerous factors – such as combining the ballot papers for the Scottish parliamentary elections, introducing a new voting system with different ballot paper marking requirements, the failure to conduct adequate research and testing on the impact this new system would have on the electorate, the insistence on conducting an overnight count – all indicate to us that voters were overlooked as the most important stakeholders to be considered at every stage of the election.

Ministers make decisions for party political gain? The voter as an afterthought, their interests overlooked at every stage? Who would have credited it? The report was debated in the House of Commons yesterday. Douglas Alexander was not there.

Aren't we always being told that it's the feral media and (to a lesser extent) cynical bloggers who are poisoning the well of political debate in this country? A "shrill discourse of demands", as Tony Blair's policy adviser put it last year?:

"What is the big breakthrough, in terms of politics, on the web in the last few years? It's basically blogs which are, generally speaking, hostile and, generally speaking, basically see their job as every day exposing how venal, stupid, mendacious politicians are."

Clearly the suggestion that we do this because our politicians are venal, stupid and mendacious is a bit revolutionary, but I hereby repeat that claim. Every time our rulers are put to the test they are found wanting. They repeatedly and constantly prove themselves to be self-serving, preening simpletons, concerned more with their own self-advancement and interests than those of the public they purport to represent.

How to deal with these people? DK proposes an elaborate scenario involving cockroaches that I feel ill even thinking about; the Longrider prefers the old standby of rope and lamp post. I tend to favour punishments that adapt to fit the crime. Hold Douglas Alexander face down in a ballot box filled with shit until the fucker drowns, choking on the shit that assails his every orifice; shit in his mouth and nostrils, shit running in his ears and shit in his eyes. Then stuff the shit-covered corpse with spoiled ballots and wheel it in to sit at the next Cabinet meeting as a warning to all those other shits. You work for us, you cunts.

Labels: ,


Comments:
"You work for us, you cunts."

True but what's the point of slinging this particular cunt out on his ear if the next cunt in line is just as bad, or probably worse? You only have to see Cameron and Hague wriggling out of making any commitment to a future referendum (or even another Parliamentary "debate") to reverse Brown's signing up to the EU treaty (as if Parliament would not ratify it) to see the "next cunt in line" process in all its disgusting glory.
 
I wasn't aware that there was a Swearbloggers Roundup in the offing, Mr. E.
 
Well someone has to point out how stupid and incompetent politicians are, seeing as they aren't willing to admit to doing anything wrong themselves.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home