Thursday, 8 April 2010

A Call For Caution...

Ok, having endured the intense coverage of the Healthcare stuff from all the US bloggers on my blogroll, now it's time for me and all the other UK blogs to start banging on about the upcoming British election.

*Ahem*

Actually, I find the whole topic intensely tedious, and won't be posting a blow-by-blow analysis of voting trends, marginal whatsits, safe swings (sorry, seats!) yada yada...

I will, however, vote. As yet, I don't know for whom. I need to ask questions.

I have heard people criticise "single issue" voters. Government is too important, they claim, to vote on a single issue.

I beg to differ.

As far as I am concerned, there is only one issue. Is the candidate pro-life or pro-death?

Because, you see, that pretty much covers everything. I just want to know: will the vulnerable be protected? That includes the unborn, the disabled, the mentally incapacitated, the terminally ill, the elderly... and, ultimately, me. Because one day, I'm likely to be taking up that "valuable hospital bed" or will be unable to say that I don't want to be starved to death... or might be so depressed that I agree I shouldn't be a burden on society, and would be better off dead...

I also don't think Britain has anything to be proud of when politicians claim that our laws mean we are at the forefront of research into human-animal hybrids and embryonic stem cells. Killing babies is nothing to be proud of.

So, as I said, only one issue matters.

Some politicians have realised this, and are being very careful in how they present anti-life policies to prospective voters.

John Smeaton's blog gives some cautionary advice on the Conservative Party's latest pronouncements... as well as telling a few home truths about the other parties' positions. Check it out.

8 comments:

gemoftheocean said...

Amen. Where they stand on abortion is NUMBER one in my book.

IMO, you have a little problem in the UK in that you don't have the option as to who heads your parties - and they party leader seems to be selected by an insider group. For instance, your local MP may very well be prolife (for instance I know Fr. John Boyle's MP, Mr. Green, is pro life) but Cameron strikes me as a flake. Though, IMO, he'd be better than Brown. Then what if the reverse is true? The MP candidate is not prolife == but the leader of his party (who will get the gig as PM should that party win) IS prolife. Then what?

HEre it's not infrequent that people 'split tickets." i.e. you might vote for the senator or House of Representatives member from one party, and for a candidate for president who doesn't belong to the same party.

gemoftheocean said...

Oh, and meant to ask you:

It seems to me it is an inherent difficulty for pro-life voters in the UK not to be able to directly choose who is to be the head of their party. Is it? In other words, the so-called "elites" may cast their lots in with the "abortion is no big thing" way of thinking. Ergo, no movement on getting restrictions on abortions.

In the US, largely the Republican candidates who win their primaries and nominations tend to be prolife, while the opposite is the case with the Demo. party.

To me, Cameron's position on abortion is indistinguishable from a US liberal democrats. But there's not JACK you can personally do about it, unless you become one of the party's inner circle.

#2 are there enough prolife MP in any of your parties to challenge the status quo? i.e. have as party leader someone who IS prolife?

#3 which of your parties has the biggest number of prolife candidates? [granted EACH candidate for office needs to be personally vetted.]

Ben Trovato said...

We are far more likely t have the opposite problem: none of the candidates (or parties) being pro-life or indeed representing any of the values and views we hold important.

It really is a quandary: should one vote for the least bad, even though that's still bad?

Dominic Mary said...

In terms of considering who to vote for, if I may parahprase Dr Johnson, a person 'who does not mind the sanctity of human life, will scarcely mind anything else'. I think that's a good guide.

GOTO;
in the UK the PM is the Leader of the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons - and party leaders are elected by the members of the parties, in their various different ways. (Of course, with a hung parliament, that's not necessarily true; but that's a different story !)

Delia said...

Fat chance round here. Labour MP: has voted on every anti-life issue you can think of. Green candidate: supports easier abortion and promotion of gay rights. Lib Dem: proud member of the Euthanasia Society for six years. Tory: website doesn't say, so only hope, though I dislike the prospect of voting Tory. Am hoping for a few harmless cranks on the ballot papers!

Patricius said...

The only alternative to voting for the least bad is not voting- which has always seemed like an abdication of responsibility.Perhaps a hung parliament would be the best possible outcome...or- the idea is appealing- a HANGED parliament!

gemoftheocean said...

DM: Yes, I know about the PM beinging the "annointed one" of the given party that has won the most seats (leaving aside coalition govts. and all that) but it seems that you don't have a system in place where Joe and Jane Sixpack get to decide WHO is the annointed one. I.E. there aren't the equivalent of primary elections to determine who the "annointed one" is to be if more than one candidate is vying for the slot. I.E. who died and elected Cameron as the Tory annointed. From across the pond where I sit, it seems he would be better for the economy, but not really much more than the width of a credit card swipe between him and the other party leaders.

For instance, in this last US election cycle, Rudy Giuliani, though competent in some areas and tough on crime didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination, because Rudy has always, "Catholic" in name only, for abortion "rights." The Abortion issue in a lot of places is very much a factor of who might win a primary.

McCain, for all his faults, was always reliably prolife, as was GW Bush. [And dynamite picks from Bush for the Supreme Court, BTW, which can effect generation(s).]

Catholic with Attitude said...

I'm stumped also with regards to who to vote for on the pro-life front of things. Hmmm...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...