Political Rants

Okay, hear me out.

I was having a mental discussion with myself the other day, inspired by someone’s postings on social media about Brexit. They were talking about their decision to vote leave was due to them hearing satirist and host of The Mash Report Nish Kumar saying leave voters were racist. Their logic behind the matter was that if they vote leave, it proves that statement to be false, as they don’t believe themselves to be racist.

There are many issues with this, notwithstanding the fact I cannot find any clear evidence of Nish saying this, it’s also the fact that their actions were completely and utterly pointless.

Yes, there are a group of remain voters suggesting that people voted leave because of either racist or xenophobic reasons, and, whilst some people may have done this, you cannot extend that to all leave voters. It’s an issue that makes me frustrated at other remain voters because I know many people who voted to leave for many other reasons, some of them with very legitimate and well-informed grievances with the EU and, back then, leaving the European Union was a way of resolving them.

Those remain voters annoy me too, but not enough to justify voting leave. To give the original poster some credit, he was largely undecided until that moment, and it was individuals like that who had to decide going off the behaviours of both hardcore Remainers and Brexiteers, and I don’t blame them for looking over at the Remain camp and seeing some rather disgusting behaviour and smear campaigning on their behalf.

The thing is though, Leave voters aren’t the only people guilty of using negative behaviour to push their own agenda. The Remain campaign got voters because of the murder of Jo Cox. This might not be a nice image to comprehend, but it doesn’t make it false. The Remain campaigners, or at least some of them, used her murder to paint all leave voters with the same brush. People chose to vote one way over the other because of the actions of one person. That applies to both the extremist Thomas Mair and Remain campaigners who slated Leave voters by accusations of racism and murder. I was even guilty of it at the time, it was hard not to be when a decision such as Brexit is being discussed. It might seem a stretch and inappropriate to use the murder of Jo Cox in this way, but it still resulted in the same thing, people voted going off one person’s, or a handful of people’s, actions, as opposed to the different arguments that were genuine, such as membership fees, EU legislation, freedom of movement, and trade agreements.

The issue is that both campaigns took advantage of the emotional vote, from Leave’s NHS bullshit-bus, which promised, sorry, suggested, an alternative use for the money used to be used, to Remain’s targeting of Leave campaigners, voters, and their own version of scaremongering (e.g. the ‘Stronger and Safer in Europe’ advert).

The main problem with the emotional vote is exactly what was observed, it causes a rift between voters, leaving instances where arguments that should have been about policy becoming an attack of the opposition’s opinions. These acts don’t result in compromise. An argument where you are targeting another person’s beliefs makes them more stubborn and more likely to defend them. It leaves no room for debate if you immediately make it personal, and the build up to the referendum was more often than not littered with emotional arguments and attacking the opposition instead of debating the positives and negatives of Brexit.

There has been a significant shift to this way of thinking and arguing, especially online. The right-wing’s incessant proclamations of “snowflake” and “cuck” shows that. It normally comes from people without any kind of comeback, meaning they have to target the person sharing different views to fire back at them. It can also be an individual that doesn’t want to listen to the alternative viewpoint, and has already decided to ignore the point and insult the speaker instead.

The left is also guilty of this. The main problem is that the left use words which can be a valid point, such as calling out racism or bigotry. However, people use these for differing opinions on immigration, welfare, and many other issues where there is room for discussion. Opposing open borders, for example, is far from racist. In an ideal world, open borders could be fantastic, people coming and going, international intermingling, a world free for everyone to live where they please. But that is being ignorant to the fact that there are people out there wanting to damage our society and hurt out country. Keeping out undesirable people, on a very basic level, is more than understandable. Who would want suicide bombers, terrorist leaders, right-wing extremists, and Donald Trump coming into the country? This can go too far, however, and can include people wanting harsher policing of our borders for racist and bigoted reasons. The lines get muddied, and that’s a major issue for a lot of left-leaning and liberal people, as they often claim racism when they just want to be cautious. The same issues fall for right-leaning people too, where they think allowing significant amounts of people, such as refugees, into the country will have a very negative effect on society.

The main solution to this problem is a broad education on these matters. Right-leaning individuals need to realise that refugees are people from a second-world country wanting to get stability and safety for themselves and their family. It’s a human responsibility to look after and take care of others in need. Seeing we have bombed Syria, we have directly added to the problem. We cannot expect to cause refugees and then reject them when they come to our doorstep. There is nothing wrong with helping out your fellow man, and calling people cucks and snowflakes for wanting to help other people, whether refugees, women, or the LGBT community, will just cause more conflict. You should look at why these people have those views and try and empathise with them. Once you strip it all to its core, you’ll just find people wanting to help other people. But enough about my ranting…

Left-leaning people need to realise that right-leaning people won’t go away. Not everyone will agree with them, and that has happened since the creation of independent thought. Mankind has been at its most peaceful when people have put aside their differences to work together towards a larger goal. This means listening and hearing the opinions and thoughts of disagreeing opinions and compromising with them. Neither one of you will get everything you wanted, but as long as neither one of you has damaging or hurtful views, it’s okay.

This has kinda been a big rant, but I think I’m just a bit sick of seeing people arguing about important issues with next to nothing actually being debated. Not to mention if someone attempts to debate, they just get called a cuck/racist/snowflake and the whole thing stalls and usually ends.

Communication is one of the most important parts of living, and recently? We haven’t been doing that.

Political Rants

I have never voted for Labour. Today, that changes.

Yes. My big 2017 snap election secret is out. It still feels very weird to say, but hear me out.

My polling history has been sketchy at best, I have got to admit. I have had a huge overhaul in ideals and priorities in the last 5 years, which has resulted in my political standpoint moving more and more towards the left hand side of the spectrum.

My original party of choice was the Conservatives. Yes, I know. Again, hear me out.

They were something different, in a world where my views were slowly developing and growing, a disillusioned teen viewing the end of the Labour years, the financial crash, and the beginning of the end of New Labour. I had witnessed war in Iraq, terror in London, and a significant amount of struggle from people facing the brunt of poorly regulated banking systems and poor investment.

David Cameron and his new form of Conservative Party was a breath of fresh air, or so it seemed at the time, and I, like many others, was caught up in it. The 2010 election, the Conservative-LibDem coalition.

Despite being too young to vote at the time, I supported the Conservative campaign, I was a blue, a Tory, to the utter despair of people I knew, die-hard Labour supporters, friends. I went along with it all, I supported austerity cuts, because we needed to cut the deficit, we needed to get the budget back on track and reduce spending. It all made sense, but it didn’t play out that way.

It is bizarre to consider that, if the Tories were successful in their austerity, and removed the deficit by the 2015 election, I, and many others, may have had a soft spot for the government – maybe even praising them. But that didn’t happen.

The deadline kept on extending, and extending, and extending, and now we have moved on from a 2015 goal to end the deficit to a 2025 goal to end the deficit.

With the goalposts constantly moving further and further away, it became less and less possible to justify the cuts that the Conservatives were, and still are, making. They have made serious and damaging cuts to the NHS, started the privatisation of Royal Mail, cut funding for poor students, and a significant amount of other cuts that hurt the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the young. How can someone still have faith in a party that has done nothing but take, and provide tax relief for the rich? Give or take a universally approved marriage equality bill, of course.

With all of this in mind, I made my switch to the Liberal Democrats. I voted for them the first time in the general election in 2015. I had seen through the unfair press they were getting as the minority party in the coalition. They made hard decisions and restrained a much more vicious Tory party than what we were expecting. They provided balance and security, and paid the price for it, as the Tories blamed them for the poor results and took the positive ones for themselves, something that they still do now.

Since then, I have been a Liberal Democrat. To my knowledge, I am still a Liberal Democrat. I have been a member of the party for over 2 years now, and very much defend the party and its core values. It holds a very major part of my political identity, with key figures such as Nick Clegg, Norman Lamb, and, possibly controversially, Tim Farron all inspiring me to be more involved in politics and form my liberal identity.

However, the 2017 election is unlike anything we’ve witnessed before on a political front. Half of the country is still reeling from the Brexit result, and the concept of a Tory Hard Brexit seemed inevitable until the election was called. The snap election that was, in my opinion, just a tool to take advantage of a fractured opposition and gain more seats. The Copeland by-election, the constituency next to mine, most certainly played a major part in this election being called. The Tories took an old Labour stronghold, an ex-Shadow Cabinet’s constituency, almost out of nowhere. Theresa May is intending on having that trend stretch further into Labour’s turf, gaining an even stronger government to have full and comfortable control over the Commons.

This is where strategic voting comes into play.

My local constituency has been a Labour stronghold for years. Tony Cunningham was the MP for 14 years before Sue Hayman took over in 2015, and Dale Campbell-Savours held the seat for an incredible 22 years before that between 1979 and 2001. For the first time in decades, that seat is at its most vulnerable, with the Conservatives trying its hardest to extend its support in the North.

Let’s not get just put my decision down to strategic voting, either. Sue Hayman is a pretty great local representative for the constituency. She has fantastic values, has fought hard for local concerns in the Commons, and has worked tirelessly throughout the entire election campaign. I know, I subscribed to her email updates and her schedule has been airtight at times. She even took time to go door to door, and spoke with my grandparents, sending them correspondence with an update on their concerns afterwards, too. It’s a fantastic work ethic and shows off a person who cares deeply for her party and the people in her Workington constituency, whilst my local LibDem candidate has been mostly mute, with most of the LibDems in the area’s concern being on Farron’s seat in Westmorland and Lonsdale. I just don’t feel obliged to vote for my party’s candidate if there is a better one available that would keep the Tories out of the area at the same time.

I must admit, too, that it goes beyond my local MP. The Labour manifesto very much speaks to me, and appeals to me in a lot of ways, sharing my views with a significant amount of their policies. I like Jeremy Corbyn, I think he is a breath of fresh air in modern politics, a man who has stuck to his guns through hardship and prosperity. I am not scared of him, far from it. He is not a man deserving of fear, unless your ideals are against a progressive, liberal movement, he is a man who has not let public opinions define him. He has done the dirty work when he has needed to, negotiating with the IRA to try and resolve the issues going on at the time. Having a discussion with terrorists doesn’t make him a terrorist sympathiser, it makes him better than the terrorists, he hasn’t resorted to violence to achieve a goal. This is the exact type of man who should be in charge of international conflict, whether political or military.

I do not have entire faith in the Labour manifesto, however. I do not think all the aims are achievable in one term, or at least not fully. Restructuring funding for the NHS, buying back the Royal Mail, and setting up a public energy company to drive down prices would take a hell of a lot of effort alone, never mind entirely scrapping tuition fees and reorganising them to a structure that works.

However, I’d very much rather a Labour manifesto that meets most of its goals, as opposed to a Tory government that is allowed to enact their manifesto in its entirety.

I feel like that is enough from me right now. I will be posting as the election day continues. But I feel like I have said enough for now.

If you are registered, go out and vote. I’d rather you didn’t go for a Tory option, but regardless of who you would vote for, exercise your right to vote. It’s important.

Happy Election Day, everyone.

Corey x


De Montfort University, I am disappointed.

I’m sure most of you are aware of the news hitting social media recently, but in case you haven’t, De Montfort University, my alma mater, has controversially made David Cameron a Companion of the University, the highest award that they could bestow upon the Prime Minister, for his involvement in legalising same-sex marriage. Given the Conservative Party’s very poor history with this generation of voters, among other reasons, you can understand why quite a lot of people were, for lack of a better phrase, ridiculously pissed off.

In all honesty, I’m not enraged or frothing at the mouth from the situation, I’m just disappointed. The behaviour shown by the university does not reflect its support of the LGBTQA+ community, nor the voice of its students, but reflects the Executive Board’s and, most importantly, Vice-Chancellor Dominic Shellard’s delusions of grandeur.

The notion that David Cameron ‘went against’ his party to pass the marriage equality act is a complete farce. The party, as well as Mr Cameron himself, didn’t have any intention of introducing same-sex marriage during the 2010 election, and was actually the Under Secretary for Equalities, Ex-Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, who put forward the discussion for marriage equality and was the first politician to support the Out4Marriage campaign. David Cameron may have voted for and supported same-sex marriage after it started to become a political movement, but his record of voting has been anything but supportive to the LGBTQA+ community. Including his previous support of Section 28, an act which stopped schools “promoting homosexuality” that was introduced by Margaret Thatcher in 1988, he also voted in favour of an act which would ban homosexual couples from adopting, and voted in favour of banning lesbian couples from having IVF treatment as recently as 2008. As well as this, there is also the fact that the Tory government has passed questionable things in regards to the LGBTQA+ community, including cutting the funding for LGBT+ charities and Mr Cameron’s appointment of Caroline Dinenage as Equalities Minister, someone who voted AGAINST the marriage equality act.

I think De Montfort University are hiding their main reasoning for giving him this award. It’s not because of their respect for David Cameron’s support of same-sex marriage (which only seemed to appear in 2011 after years of being a supporter of “traditional family values”), but more so the fact that they could go to 10 Downing Street, show off their “liberal” side, and get their names in the papers. Their lack of consultation with the student body (where both the LGBT+ Society’s Chairperson, Tim Deves, and the university’s LGBTQ+ representative, Daniel Murgatroyd, weren’t informed) shows this, as no LGBTQA+ supporting student in their right mind would deem Mr Cameron worthy of this award.

I have stuck up for De Montfort University since I first arrived at their campus; their constant support of equality and LGBTQA+ rights and listening to their students’ concerns were two of the reasons why I loved studying there. This time, however, they have been nothing short of a disappointment, putting their bragging rights and one-upmanship over the ideals of its students, and the very community in which they so heavily support.

A.N – Please read and sign the DMU LGBT+ society’s petition!