h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We've been hearing a little recently about the relative merits and demerits of 'positive' and 'negative' campaigning. So, both in relation to this election and in abstracto...

Would you prefer parties to focus on how much better they reckon they could make life, how rotten it can be now, or neither in particular?


Are you actually motivated more by how nice the promised future could be, or by how much you hate a particular party or candidate? (I get the impression it's frequently the latter, but feel free to tell me I'm just pessimistic.)

Is this talk of 'positive' and 'negative' that helpful, or does it obscure the fact that parties are actually expected to propose solutions (positive) to existing problems (negative)?

It would be a bit masochistic, surely, to actually enjoy negative campaigning.

I think people who hate the other party or parties (whichever apply) are pretty dangerous.

Maybe we should have ballot papers that invite you to mark negative votes as well as positive ones. Then we could surreptitiously not count the vote of anyone who hates anyone else.

Might be a bit of a low turnout, though

There's a lot to be said for placid blandness in politics. I'm not sure whether this is quite the thread to record this in, but here's something that made me laugh last night : a friend listened glumly to the "up, up, up, down, down, down" performance on the news, and then announced : "Y'know, I feel ready to vote for William Hague".

What's wrong with masochism?

I liked the last PMQs; very stirring, very engaging. If your friend wants blandness, how about... oh wait, that would be censored, wouldn't it?

As for hatred... on the basis of some h2g2 threads I've seen, I agree that there might be a rather low turnout. Except perhaps for the Kill Margaret Thatcher Party.

Yeh, What's wrong with masochism? It'd be nice if every now and then a polition during this ere campaign for election, would actuallly stop talking in soundbites and vague ambetious sounding claims of what they'd do, and actually tell us some of their policys, I know, I know, it'd go completely against the tradition of campaigning but we can but dream can't we?

I've nothing against masochism. I mentioned William Hague, didn't I?

(AND didn't get moderated. We can presumably mention defunct opposition leaders, then. Yep. I notice that someone got away with Gladstone, too)

Anyway, back to the topic...

To the first three Q's, I say :
- Making life better, please
- Promise of the future, please
- Of course talking about past problems is needed in order to explain policies, but it isn't necessary to present those problems as Acts of Evil perpetrated by Demon Former Governments.

Gladstone happens to be not only retired from politics, but dead.

Yeah, but it's all relative, isn't it?

(OK, I suppose death technically maybe isn't, but still...)