Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Can you be the most beloved and most hated?

A lot of talk has occurred between the AV club and The FPTP order in which the terms "Most supported" and "Least Disliked" have come up.

I quickly came to the conclusion, as you have my wonderful clever readers (have a cookie), that this is probably not going to be the same candidate.

This sparks in my memory the Marmite/ Nick Clegg debacle.

Now there are two very subtlely different points I will be making here, so I will split them up.

1) Most Supported vs Least Disliked

If we assume these are two different candidates, who should the system we use look to elect?
If you have read any of my other blog entries you will know my preference and I will not spoil your reading by telling you now.

My case.
Think of something 'least disliked', I don't mean most loved (though this doesn't exclude it of course).
I have a friend in mind from my rather small group of friends, who I would say is the most disliked. They don't offend anyone, they haven't said anything bad about anyone,  always remembers to 'poke' back, shows up at anyone and everyone's parties and is well known. What's he like? I'll tell you. Haven't got a clue. The reason why, is because he has no views! Nothing distinguishing.

By that, I mean of course, he has no 'vocalised' views, I am sure he mutters under his breath...or in the shower...or into his pillow, but he doesn't go out on a limb, he isn't decisive, he is not confident...in other words he is the opposite of a natural born leader.

What if we forced him to be a leader? We don't know and cannot predict at all.

I fear that if we elect the most disliked we will end up with the grey luke warm soup of a government that offends no-one but does nothing.

2) Most Supported vs Most hated

So, now we have a different problem. What happens when the most supported is also the most hated person?
I have thought about this too and it may not suprise you either but came conclusion that Love beats Hate.

The way I can explain my view on this is very practical.
I can name the stance on most issues of parties I support. I generally know their history, their central ideology and how it has changed over the years. I can even do this with affiliated groups from other countries (oh yes, I am a treat at parties as you can imagine). However, I cannot say the same as the parties I dislike.

I dislike the BNP. I dislike what they stand for, I dislike their leaders, present and past, I dislike their central theme but I cannot tell you their economic policy.

I can imagine it has probably something to do with getting rid of everyone not from this country (bye bye uncle John, shouldn't have been descended from Normans, bye bye Jeff, too much Norse blood, Bye Bye Simon too much Germanic blood....wait a sec, there is no-one left) , cutting links with Europe and demanding that the deficit clear itself up or be shot with the Citizen's Assault Rifle.
But that is just a guess.

I tested this theory out the other day too.
In numerous places (chosen by the number of labour voters and complete with my Thatcher/Che logo) I posted the following message.
"I think that everyone should get the child benefit, even millionaires"

Within minutes on 3 of the 5 locations I was called a "Tory C**t", accused of being detached, not knowing how hard it was for the REAL people (I guess I AM an illusion afterall) and here is the extra extra fun one, called a "Prick" because...and I quote "Benefits should be means tested".

It took half an hour for someone to realise, after a few hints, something which I hope you have figured out already.  "I think that everyone should get the child benefit, even millionaires"...is a socialist policy. DUM DUM DUM!!!!

Infact, it was used to ATTACK the Tory lead coalition. by no other than Ed Miliband.

Isn't that scary? Labour people calling ME a 'Tory C*unt' for claiming to have the same opinion as their leader...used to attack the Tories. They then tell me things should be means tested...a fundamental idea of the Tories.

I can't claim I was speechless, because I did it on purpose knowing that this was the likely response, but it is worrying.

People know so little about who they hate, that they are willing to hate them even if they adopt policies they claim to agree with.

Hate is not conducive to understanding. It is in a lot of cases born from ignorance, prejudice and hearsay.

An exercise for you to try at home kids.

Try to think of something you love, and then something you hate in the same family and then name as many facts about them as you can.

I predict you will find more in the love column in most cases.

This is why even the most hated is the best choice in my opinion if it is the most supported.

No comments:

Post a Comment