Election 2015: Your vote is your chance to speak out, even if you only do so tactically

With the UK's voting system being less than great when it comes to representation, it isn't surprising that there are many people out there who are seriously considering a tactical vote.

With a 'largest minority takes all' system, greatly in need of reform into something more representative, too many people are casting ballots without a hope of seeing themselves represented in their constituency. This is not a new issue - John Cleese had plenty to say about it thirty years ago. But its what we have for now.

As a result, many have cast, and many are again considering casting, their vote for the best of the worst - or at least, the most likely of the rest to stop the candidate they most despise from being the one who represents them. There are arguments for and against tactical voting which have validity - mostly divided between the idealism of voting for what you believe in, and the practicality of stopping what runs counter to your beliefs.

Various sources have published guides to where and how a tactical vote can count the most. Liberal blogger Stephen Tall gives a run down of where to vote tactically if you want to oppose UKIP. The Guardian and The Independent have both published guides to tactical voting in favour of any party, and voteswap.org is offering a  pledge system that allow you to vote tactically for Labour or the Greens in co-ordination with others around the UK.

It is to be hoped that this might be the last time a tactical vote is needed. The case for reform is growing irresistible. Sadly not everyone thinks the best move would be towards a more European style, more proportional system. Some would rather move towards another form of two-party system in the American style.

Regardless of how you intend to vote, even if you only spoil your ballot paper with a silly picture or a meaningful slogan, please do vote. Don't let the establishment think that your disgust, displeasure or disillusionment is to do with you being apathetic or uninterested. Make your voice heard, even if only to reject all of the options and demand better.

Election 2015: The European Union - is the UK's future in or out?

The pressure applied by UKIP and the rest of the Conservative Party's Right-wing has succeeded in putting the question of the UK's membership of the European Union on the table. If those parties succeed in gaining enough seats at the next election, then a referendum on the UK's place in the EU will be on its way. Then, if a majority vote to leave, the UK will sail off into the Atlantic. Sounds simple, doesn't it?

The simplicity is, however, restricted to the actual decision to leave - which itself can be done with an ease that a lot of world leaders find quite disturbing, especially as most of them think the UK and the EU are better together (Preston, 2015). The potential ramifications are much greater and more complex.

Reports suggest, in a best case scenario, that everyone in the EU will lose out economically if the UK leaves, but no one more than the UK itself (Grice, 2015). While there is apparently a quiet acknowledgement even amongst Eurosceptics that - at least initially - the UK will be less well off outside of the EU, there are those who see big business opportunities away from the European system (Preston, 2015).

Amongst Eurosceptics there is talk of the UK's Financial Services industry being 'freed' from the EU Financial Transaction Tax - which was pressured into existence in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis by the campaign for a Robin Hood Tax; 'freed' from the EU cap on bankers' bonuses; 'freed' to pursue new trade deals with 'emerging markets', like India, where some feel the EU failed to negotiate a good enough deal; and even to pursue the marketing of UK agriculture to the world (Preston, 2015).

The trouble is, those arguments all seem to depend upon a lot of 'if'. If the UK is able to negotiate a substantially different deal while still maintaining its trading links (Behr, 2014). If it is able to successfully renegotiate better deals for the UK than it could get when it was able to advertise free access through Britain to the whole of the European Market - at a time when the UK's trade relationships are already very lopsided against the UK (Peston, 2015).

On that particular point: the UK would also have to convince the potential investors that they would be getting a good deal from pouring their money into the products of one of the most expensive places in the world to live and work. With a high cost of living, wages have to keep up, which means businesses fork over large sums of money on labour costs. While the EU is a free market, it nonetheless encourages protections of workers rights and measures to raise the standard of living across all member states, and trading partners, up to the same level to try and avoid anyone being undercut.

Are the UK's workers going to receive those same assurances when they are competing in a global free market against the workers of India or China? It's more likely that they will face the same calls for measures aimed at increasing 'competitiveness' - levelled at countries with high debt like Italy - which, under talk of lowering prices and increasing flexibility, ultimately demands cuts to wages so reduce the cost of labour (Sinn, 2014).

None of this is, of course, to suggest that the EU is perfect. The European Union is subject to the same pressures from globalisation as anywhere else in the world. It needs serious reform, such as the need to make the management of the European economy, and particularly of the Euro, more democratic (Garton Ash, 2015).

But achieving these reforms means getting into the spirit of internationalism. As Nick Clegg said during the BBC's Question Time Election Leaders Special on Thursday (30th April), the main issues facing us today are continental, not just national. The solutions to problems like tax dodging corporations and human traffickers will be continental and international in scale, not confined to particular countries and nations.

There are ideals in the make-up of the European Union - mostly constricted to being merely undertones in these times when ideologically conservative economics is riding high - grounded in internationalism, solidarity, commonality and liberty. There is a sense that, with reform, the European Union could be a positive progressive force for the common good.

The European Parliament has campaigned for equal pay for men and women and for the rights of pregnant workers. It derailed the ACTA treaty, which lead to most European nations refusing to ratify it, and it has also forced the TTIP treaty negotiations to be open and transparent (Robinson, 2015).

The European Globalization Adjustment Fund provides compensation when jobs move abroad, and funding for new training and start-ups. The EU even pursued the capping of bankers bonuses (at an obviously stingy 100% of their salaries) in the face of opposition from the UK government (Robinson, 2015{2}).

The cost to the UK of being part of all this is a net contribution to the EU budget £6.5bn to £8.5bn per year, less than 0.5% of British GDP. That figure extracts from the gross contribution what is spent back in the UK itself, on supporting everything from agriculture and scientific research to grants for local councils. For this investment the Confederation of British Industry suggests net economic benefit of EU membership to the UK is £62-78bn/yr (Robinson, 2015{3}).

As for immigration there is evidence that it has limited impact on wages, even coinciding with a boost in wages in the long term (Preston, 2015). While the 5% lowest paid can be disproportionately affected, the solutions lies in tackling low pay with minimum and living wages, with better education and training, and by addressing the disparities in the quality of life and levels of pay to be found across Europe - once again, continent-wide solutions. In terms of numbers, at present 2.2m British citizens live elsewhere in the EU, balancing out the 2.4m EU citizens living the UK. Less than 5% of the EU migrants claim jobseekers and less than 10% claim other working age benefits (Robinson, 2015{3}).

Are these arguments likely to dissuade fervent Eurosceptics? Probably not. There is a certain sense of Nationalism to Euroscepticism that makes talk of negotiation and reform, rather than abandonment, likely to fall unheard.

That does necessarily not mean that some satisfactory compromise cannot be reached.

A number of leading European figures have for some time been talking about a two-speed Europe - the tone of which might be seen in David Cameron's 'veto' in 2011 (Curtis, 2011). While trying to negotiate policy for the single market, the EU faced opposition from Cameron who demanded protections, exemptions and concessions for the City of London's financial sector. However, instead of actually blocking the move - as would be required for it to actually be a veto - the UK merely removed itself from consideration on the issues being discussed and the rest of the EU went on with its discussions.

Romano Prodi, former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Commission, has argued that the move towards a two-speed Union is well under way as a practical response to the realities of the situation (Tost, 2012). Prodi stressed that Europe is taking steps towards a common financial policy without the UK - the next big step in integration - and that Cameron's policies have only moved Britain to the fringes where they will have less influence.

The reality will be a UK that tries to opt out of what it doesn't want - within limits which will still mean much the same situation if the UK wants to trade with Europe - but will remain, in principle, a member of the Union and UK citizens will keep some of the benefits of being EU citizens like free movement and access to European Courts.

Meanwhile, the rest of Europe will continue to grow closer, gradually building a continental federation and reforming it to become more democratic. There are alternatives that would see Britain more involved or holding the EU at arms length, but this approach, of a two-speed Union - seems the only one likely to strike a balance between pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics.

Election 2015: Political endorsements - Newspapers, Russell Brand and #Milifandom

As might be expected, the media has had a lot to say about the upcoming 2015 UK general election. Their major concern has been the matter of who will do a deal, and who they will do it with, when the predicted hung parliament arrives on the day after the 7th May. Most of that focus has been on Labour and SNP- with many making headlines of the deal offered by the SNP's leader Nicola Sturgeon during the opposition debate (Kleiderman, 2015), with less coverage of the fact that Ed Miliband made a clear and absolute refusal.

There have also been a few celebrity endorsements, mostly for Labour. Delia Smith, Steve Coogan, Paul O'Grady, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Martin Freeman and Jo Brand have given their backing to Ed Miliband's party (Turner & Holehouse, 2015). None of these endorsements have received quite as much attention as Russell Brand. Brand's comments in the years running up to the election, suggestive that people should not to vote in protest against the British political system, have been heavily criticised (Alexander, 2014). However, with only a few days to go until the election, Brand has now endorsed Green Party candidate Caroline Lucas (Walker, 2015) and today endorsed voting for Labour (New Statesman, 2015) - which feels like a slightly irresponsible shift in position to make, from 'won't vote' to 'vote for this', after the voting registration deadline has long passed.

The newspapers have also begun to declare themselves. The Financial Times and the Economist have both come out in favour of a continuing Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition (Ashmore, 2015). The Guardian has backed Labour, but with an acknowledgement of the value of voting Liberal Democrat or Green where those parties have a chance (The Guardian, 2015). As for The Sun, it has declared in favour of the Conservatives - and yet its sister paper in Scotland has backed the SNP (BBC, 2015).

Just as interesting, and maybe quite a lot less bland, has been the coverage on social media where the election, and particularly the economics debate, has been a top trending topic over the last month (Simmonds, 2015). UKIP have been the most talked about party, though not necessarily for good reasons - controversial as they are - but the Greens have received the most positive tweets ahead of the Conservatives, who have a slight edge over Labour in terms of positive feedback.

The most inspiring social media story was the launching of a social media campaign, #Milifandom, against, and in order to counter, the alleged distorted portrayal of Ed Miliband in the media (Jewell, 2015). Abby, 17 and apparent spokesperson for the fandom, has said that they wanted to "change opinions so people don’t just see the media’s usual distorted portrayal of him".

Responses to #Milifandom have included references to 'smitten' teenage girls, and photoshopped images of politicians as 'only ephemerally amusing', of fandom being just teenage girls falling 'desperately in love', and a product of their 'all-consuming hormonal hysteria' (Jewel, 2015; McElvoy & Parkinson, 2015; Ratcliffe, 2015) - which all leave a whiff of condescension in the air.

Apart from somewhat robbing these people of their agency by reducing their actions to 'smitten hormonal hysteria', a fairly big point seems to have been missed about fandom: tongue-in-cheek, excessive exaggeration and over-the-top sarcasm and irony are common and deliberate tools for making a point. And enthusiasm, something that has become almost a dirty word in a world undercut by irony, is also alive and well in fandoms.

A sense for the satirical? An interest in challenging establishment message and expectations? Passionate enthusiasm? These are all things politics does not have in plentiful supply. Here are people, mostly young and female, two other things poorly represented in political circles, who understand how their medium works and how to mobilise people using it - and they're using it to challenge a mass media editorial line in their own way. Patronising them is really not the way forward.

Of all the stories at this election, from newspaper and celebrity endorsements to post-election deals, the enthusiasm shown for politics by thousands young women is easily the most important. Passion and a critical eye, with a satirical tongue firmly in cheek, is a good sign for the future electoral politics in the UK. It gives us hope that, regardless of what deals and compromises are made that drive people away from politics in disaffection, there will always be people out there with the energy to speak up and participate.