"Witch, witch, burn her, burn her!"

I gather that Nadine Dorries, Tory MP and doyenne of those who aren't that keen on our supposedly libertine sexual culture, has been at it again. From what I understand, Nadine has commented that, if we encouraged girls to abstain from sex, there would be less 'sexual abuse'. Now I appreciate that such comments seem illogical but that surely doesn't merit the sort of completely over-the-top, lunatic reaction as we actually got:

@Chrisisis Lot of agreement about how repulsive #Dorries is, so lets spread the word about #SlutWalk Manchester

@Hhaylo: If #Dorries was a man, calls for resignation & accusations of misogyny would be widespread. Despicable that as a woman she gets away with it

...and so on - endless tweets and retweets castigating this MP. For what? For having an opinion - one I disagree with - but an opinion nonetheless. The reaction is frankly rather ridiculous - there's a case to be made and an argument to be had about sex education, about the attitude of men towards women and about sexual promiscuity. But these are debates - those who hold the opposite view are not evil people merely people with whom we don't agree.

In this case the reaction demonstrates a real weakness in the arguments supporting 'establishment' views relating to sex education, sexual behaviour and morality. If, when the established assumptions are criticised, the only response is ad hominum attack, over-reaction and the construction of legions of straw men we really do have a problem. Nadine Dorries may well be wrong but I'm also sure she isn't "repulsive", a "misogynist" or even "despicable".

The reaction - the frothing mobb of unpleasantnness - brings to mind the 17th century witch crazes where innocent (and sometimes not so innocent) comments were blown out of all proportion as the crowds yelled:

"Witch, witch! Burn her, burn her!"

So much for a rational society and grown up debate.

Could not voting be rational behaviour?

***

As you all know I’ve talked quite a lot about the question of non-participation in our lovely political system. Indeed, I have praised the good idiots who will get on with their lives unhindered and unembarrassed by not having voted. I’ve also argued that the coming election will see turnout fall still further from the levels of 2001 and 2005.

So it was with some delight that I stumbled across (or rather that Bastard Old Holborn stumbled across to be fair) this programme from BBC Scotland. Is not voting a rational choice asks the programme:

"Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University's department of government says that, in certain circumstances, not voting may be the rational choice.

It may well be that, now that duty is in decline, people think rationally 'is it worthwhile voting?' And I suspect that for at least a part of the electorate that they calculate it's just not worth bothering.

Not least because in most constituencies, even in years when you get big shifts in public opinion and a big shift in the numbers of MPs, the majority of seats just don't change hands."

It seems to me that the rational argument for not voting extends even further than just not bothering in a safe seat. It must apply where the voter calculates that their vote will not – under whatever circumstances – achieve the change they desire. There is clearly a rational case for not voting if – as is believed by many electors – there is little difference between the parties. Why should somebody waste even 15 minutes of their time voting when the outcome will be the same regardless of that vote? And this applies whether the voter’s expected outcome is positive, negative or neutral.

The only rational case for voting is where the effect of the vote has the prospect of either securing or preventing change. Where someone expects everything or nothing to change as a result of putting a cross in a box, there is little point in toddling down to the village hall or school. Now, since my MP is (much of the time) a rare voice of sanity in a world of robot-like apparatchiks, I will be voting to prevent change (i.e. to keep him there).

....

Abstentions set to top General Election Poll Again!

***
Have avoided writing about polls and such like – partly because while I may be obsessed with them most normal folk are not. But mostly because Anthony Wells does such a great job reporting on them that what I add is usually pretty marginal.

However, I was struck by the front page headline in Metro this morning – “Labour loses third of voters”. Now before you all make jokes about Gordon’s carelessness, let’s look at the body of the report which relates to the findings of a Harris Poll for the paper:

“Just 66 per cent of those who backed labour in 2005 intend to vote for the party now, the research showed. It compared with 86 per cent of Conservative supporters who say they will back the party again. The Liberal Democrats have also shed a third of their 2005 voters according to our poll.”

Let’s be clear, if this is literally true that is over 6 million voters who are switching to a voting behaviour other that that in 2005. Polls suggest that about about 1m additional people are planning on voting Conservative. The Liberal Democrat polling figures are all over the place but the poll reported here puts them down 4 point on 2005 – about 1 million votes. And Labour have dropped about 1.5 million on 2005.

We still have 3 million missing voters – people who will not be voting for the main three parties. The Harris Poll shows “others” at 16% - that’s up about 1.5 million votes. So what’s happened to those other 1.5 million votes – about 6% of the electorate?

My guess is they won’t be voting. Expect turnout to drop to its lowest for some while – probably around 55%.

Looks like the good idiots are on course to top the poll come May!

...