At the risk of teaching granny to suck eggs, advice to beat a stronger enemy: change the rules of engagement to suit you. He would have invented them especially to maintain his supremacy in the first place. Accepting the restrictions they place on you is to cement your disadvantage; to admit your eventual inevitable defeat.
I mention this because the elections for local councils and the referendum for the change in the voting system are now imminent. Anecdotally, many people have not decided how they are going to vote in these things – just as a good portion of respondents told a Survation Poll that they didn’t know how they will vote in the Leicester South by-election (to be honest, I can’t recall noticing the usual percentage of “don’t knows” for such things). If it be the case that the reader is amongst those experiencing some uncertainty, I volunteer my own thoughts about how the establishment would gain from the way we voted, and what establishment-made rules – if any – shape our approach to the ballots.
Firstly, what are the rules or expectations for local elections? A lot of people reasonably believe that local elections are about picking the best man or woman for the local job at hand – the most appropriate character; the most able well-respected townsman. Normal political party loyalty can become a secondary consideration. Even if the ruling national party stinks to high heaven, it shouldn’t necessarily tarnish the people at the grass roots who are proposing measures for the benefit of your street or neighbourhood.
Having said that, I think it’s generally accepted that people use local elections equally to protest about national issues. The degree to which either motivation is true is sometimes just a matter of interpretation and what we get told depends on what party tacticians consider the most conducive for perception-shaping to their advantage.
As a general rule – let us say – a national party who does badly in a local election will blame it on local difficulties for individual candidates. Or, if they are the ruling party, they will bleat about voter expression of “midterm dissatisfaction”. The priority is to downplay the result because holding on to power in a fake democracy is a delicate business that cannot afford any perception of weakness. The LibLabCon know about the minds of men and a desire therein for the security of a flock. In terms of safety by numbers, the big flock is the winning one. If the other flock looks big enough, while yours has become depleted, then safety is more likely within the other fold.
If this is the mentality at work, then every opportunity must be taken to make the three main political parties look weak. In other words, the local elections must become about voting in the national interest and voting for any other candidate except those representing the LibLabCon. Considerations about local people best suited for the local circumstances should be abandoned.
These aren’t normal times, after all, and timely reminder was given about the EU plot against us by Eric Pickles over the bank holiday weekend. I am referring of course to the phenomenon of creeping EU regionalism. From all the signs it looks like this will be the way that the EU will eventually dominate us without our much noticing (and kicking up a storm). They will restrict representative government to some kind of local body through which they will tax us directly. At the national level – which will only be there so that the deluded can believe that Great Britain is a real country – government will be impotent. Above it will be the untouchable EU dictatorship. The EU will want you to view local elections as the ultimate way that you can affect how government impacts upon your life. Naturally, this will be to reduce your power over a representative government to matters solely regarding local services. You will not be encouraged to consider any level of government higher than that as anything that you can realistically hope to affect. As you can see, this is all the more reason why it is imperative that the LibLabCon gets an electoral kicking whenever an opportunity arises.
What about the AV referendum? What are the rules that the establishment expects you abide by in that case? I personally believe that whatever system we have will not make the slightest difference if people continue to vote for the LibLabCon. Only a significant enough abandonment of the three main parties will bring about the change that is required in our country.
The debate about AV is a distraction in the first place. It is supposed to distract us from the lack of the promised referendum on the EU constitution (which is a distraction in itself from straightforward withdrawal from the EU that I gather can be effected by the repeal of certain legislation). The arguments between Coalition government members about the merits or dangers of AV is just another illusion designed to inject the idea into the minds of voters that the debate is important; to make people engage in the activity of distracting itself.
For the establishment, then, it doesn’t matter how you vote in the AV referendum – it just wants you to take part in it. What you should do, therefore, is not take part in it. I am going to spoil my own ballot paper with some blunt comment or other to demonstrate that I know about their attempt to distract, that it has failed, and I am focussing on the real struggle – my liberty, their criminality – and how, therefore, I will win.