OK, so let's imagine that there are four political parties (and for convenience, let's call them red, yellow, green and blue) and let's further imagine that there are just four great issues (let them be : environmental; educational; health and social care; defence and policing).
The traditional view is that a 'blue-supporter' would choose only blue answers to the four great political issues of the day; likewise a 'green' would only choose the green answers; a 'red', red answers; yellows would of course choose the yellow alternatives. Well this idea does not apply to me and I am sure that it does not apply to a large proportion of the electorate.
I may choose the following combination: 'green environment', 'blue defence and policing', 'yellow health and social care', and 'red education'. Equally, I may choose an alternative combination: 'red environment', 'yellow defence and policing', 'green health and social care', and 'blue education'. Or, even : 'red environment', 'green defence and policing', 'blue health and social care', and 'yellow education'.
Lets think about it, with our little scenario we have sixteen possible combinations.
Just because I like 'blue defence' does not mean that I should like 'blue everything'; equally, if I like 'green environment' it does not mean that I would be happy with 'green everything'!
Actually, why should i, or anyone, like anything that our four imaginary parties put on the table for our consideration?
Think about it, the offerings are really just like those 'one-size-fits-all' garments we've all seen. And, when was the last time 'one-size-fits-all' actually fitted?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment