Opinions upon Protesting

Protest Votes and Political Opinion Polls!

Quite when was it, do you suppose, that we slipped so seamlessly from Opinion Polls asking us what we thought, to telling us what we ought to think?

Until round about two-hundred years ago even the merest concept of such a thing as an Opinion Poll was unheard of. And, judging by the first recorded use of these things it has been a downhill journey ever since. It would appear that their first known use was in predicting the outcomes of American Presidential Elections, and within another hundred years political opinion polls may well already have gained use as a means to 'push' a particular desired outcome. Only disingenuous individuals, or else those of extreme naivety, could these days claim that Opinion Polls in any way serve any form of aspirational democracy. And yet they're still being used, still being 'justified,' as somehow a tool of democratic enhancement, rather than as entirely a weapon in suppression of the same. I seriously doubt that there weren't some individuals present in 1936 who won't, even then, have recognised the 'great potential' there for the corruption of due process.

Now, far be it for me to state here that Political Opinion Polls are entirely unrepresentative- common sense may already have answered this question- although, as already made clear, I think it can be argued that their use may often be construed as being disingenuous.

To draw a comparison, we should accept that non-political opinion polls serve a somewhat clearer purpose, otherwise why would such expensive things happen at all? Allow me to elucidate further...

We could imagine a simple poll of public opinion, by any food manufacturer, say regarding the flavour of a new sample product. The results would enable the company to incorporate the popular choices and to ditch the ones deemed to be less so. In fact this would undeniably be to the benefit of most people, both the manufacturer and the consumer in general terms. Obviously there might be those individuals who would lose out, but they would always be those in the minority. It's hardly a serious issue is it, one 'lost' food item within a fully-rounded diet, for a small minority of people? They could always shop elsewhere.



Where the Political Poll would appear to differ could be traced back to several crucial points in the actual process. Initially, we could ask why it is that a particular person or organisation needs to know the mood of the nation? Then we might look at the timing of the release into the public arena of any 'findings.' "Why here, why now, why that particular set of polling questions, to which purpose?" we might reasonably question.

Along parallel lines, billboard political messages seem simply to anger most people that I know. "Why would you assume us stupid enough to be swayed by something as simplistic and clearly as partisan as that?" the public might respond. "The image is one of misinformation, and it soils the neighbourhood," they are quite likely thinking. Unless, of course, they're not thinking at all, in which case the message might simply serve to consolidate an absence of thought. And yet the imagery, the message, persists- '£350 million' springs to mind, albeit nailed to the side of a bus- so clearly there is a feeling that this method is working at some level.

For people who produce misinformation to political ends, especially if they label themselves as 'advertising agencies,' the rewards may be very handsome. So 'someone' thinks it's worthwhile. And that 'someone' has a lot more pertinent information to hand than do you or I. So this would suggest that, at at least a significant level, the production of misinformation works, or that it is deemed to do so. In tandem, the mis-message and the manufactured response have served up a real chimera. It may be presented as real, it may be perceived as being so, but it really isn't.

Instead, what is real is the fact that it offers some serious remuneration for certain individuals. In close comparison we could cite the control of all sports by the sponsors (advertisers) as an example of just how profitable the circulation of misinformation (lies, suggestion, selective information, 'positive' reinforcement, whatever) can be. Maybe, it could be argued, that, within sport, living with advertising misinformation is a price worth paying. But, if one fully considers the ongoing and rising (sometimes hidden) cost of watching the sport of your choice, one might well wish to reconsider. *

My contention is that the control of misinformation is not only prevalent in our society, but that it has disproportionately grown to become fully a 'life blood' of our nation, as with many other nations. It's really the neoliberal dream, a world where people may be endlessly manipulated to financial ends. And the political ends are now, we should accept, absolutely inseparable from financial ends; remove one and the other, in its current form, will die. If we consider the ownership of our national newspapers and other news outlets, then things really do seem to make a lot more sense... but not 'sense' in any sort of a good way. We might reasonably contend/accept that all information is now a potential commodity, and just like many other commodities it is there to be moulded, refined and repackaged, and sold on as the holder sees fit.



Following the spouting of a great deal of misinformation a vote upon Britain's role in the EU has just taken place. In considerable abundance much of the aforementioned preceded this National Referendum, the outcome of which appears also to have been swayed, in part, by a significant Protest Vote. And, I believe that it would be entirely fair to state that anyone who elected to use the referendum to cast a Protest Vote was entirely a victim, thus a consumer, albeit unwittingly, of misinformation. But, what exactly is a 'Protest Vote?' And, can we trace this particular political tool back so very far in our history?

I think that this is rather more difficult to fathom; the concept of a Protest Vote is, I think, far more nuanced, and quite possibly almost as old as the vote itself. It's desired purpose writhes about considerably, depending upon all manner of issues, and yet it has become so recognised by some that whole political parties have arisen about its potential power. Giving us savages a proper vote and then expecting us to know what to do with it, well, it's never going to work as planned is it? Would eating a vote instead of casting it count as a protest, do we think, even though it might offer a better nutritional return than would the broken promises of any given candidate? At least the latter dilemma properly weighs up the options.

In the UK, come the Local Elections, results are quite often 'dismissed' by our partisan media as those of a protest movement. Whether one has voted for Mickey Mouse, scrawled 'none of the above,'  or simply not bothered to register or turn up, all could be symptomatic of the same all-pervading sense of disenfranchisement and dread. It has been said that whereas Thatcher (Satan eternally feast upon her prostituted soul) polarised more voters, Blair (he's waiting for you too) simply discarded and disenfranchised them. If one does what one is 'required' to do as a 'responsible' citizen, and always exercises one's 'right' to vote, what actually happens when one is faced with a shortlist of proven liars and frauds? Surely, under such circumstances, any considered vote becomes by definition a Protest Vote, doesn't it? So, who's really generating the protest? Is it the voter or is it, in fact, the proven fraud who's standing yet again for re-election?

As an aside, and yet still highly pertinent, I have included here a link to an interview with Michael Moore, who speaks with far greater political and social insight and articulation than most. Given that politicians in the UK often seem almost to worship The States, his words may be seen as a chilling insight into what may still be to come. If time is of the essence I'd stop reading here and watch this instead. The interview is conducted by Piers Morgan; well, you can't have everything. **



In the UK electoral turnout has fallen to something a touch under 70% which is pretty damn good really; it's certainly a great deal higher than most of 'our' candidates deserve. But, even during the nation's proudest moments, the creation of the NHS for example, the turnout has seldom risen much above 80%. Going with the current figures (66%) this might suggest that as many as 34 in every hundred 'adults' feels so under-represented that voting has absolutely no perceived worth to them whatsoever. Going out upon a limb, I'm going to to suggest that these voting figures are still way way more supportive of the system, than the system is of the voters.

So, given that as many as 34 in every hundred of the electorate feels so disillusioned with what's on offer that they will not even bother to participate, it seems most unlikely that the remainder are going to feel that the system's working wholly to the optimum. Under these circumstances isn't it inevitable that a significant proportion of the voters will have participated with significantly diminished faith in any reward, therefore that they may well have voted, but that it will have been with a significant element of anti in this action?

There are copious scholarly papers written upon the subject of the Protest Vote, formulaically supported to boot. They 'speak' with some conviction, about the reasons for voting with such a mindset, whether it be upon a single issue or whether it be about a diminished conviction about a single candidate or political party. And most significant within many of the studies is the supported contention that any form of Protest Voting is far more likely to be effective if it is coordinated. Pluck out the observation and it suddenly rings as entirely obvious, "Of course a coordinated protest is going to be more effective than a random array of seemingly unfocused ballot papers," we might smilingly agree.

But, let's just flesh it out a bit, shall we, see where it may lead? What if an uncoordinated protest is then misrepresented in the media as being coordinated or vice versa? What then? Voters absolutely have to be right in fighting to redefine any given parameters, to extract the maximum value from their given vote- it really is such a minimal concession from the elite- but, will they always recognise the effort when they have thought, even fought, to do so?

When the fight has been routinely observed, considered and digested by the begrudging elite, isn't it highly likely that they will have attempted to divert any wishes that might be construed as counterproductive, that is against the wishes of those who believe that power is most effectively employed when it is not shared and 'worthlessly' diluted? The Parliamentary Labour Party certainly tries to take this line, supported most 'commendably' by the Guardian newspaper.



So to wind up this ramble, let's see if I can't attempt to pull this all into some sort of focus. I should start by reminding us that, far from what is presented, the media- its newspapers, its TV channels, many of its internet sites- is also to be regarded as a commodity. It may be bought, sold, bargained for and employed as best suits the market, not the electorate. At best we may hope that a multi-millionaire with a tiny conscience decides to invest in a newspaper- no much luck to date- as a hobby almost. But, at no point will the wider-market be bowing down to properly reference the electorate. So, once the media at large has 'caught up' with the concept of the Protest Vote, any public anger, any sense that all is not as it seems, may then be purchased as information, repackaged and re-sold to the general public.

You may well know that your vote was not one of mere protest, yet you may read about it in tomorrow's newspaper as one of mid-term cage rattling. Conversely, you may know that you are one of many souls hoping to chip away at government intransigence, and yet it may just as easily be sold back to you as a serious cry for political change at the helm. It will depend, of course, upon whatever the stipulated role of the bought-and-sold media is to be, whether to undermine or else to bolster.

In recent decades the likelihood of any serious undermining of 'standing government' has been considerably reduced. But, before we celebrate this as any sort of blow for democracy, we should understand that this is because the 'covert-state-machine' is now so dangerously powerful that the chances of any serious opposition gaining a foothold have been so reduced as to render General Elections approaching-redundant- at 'worst' an expensive inconvenience. In the event of the aforementioned 'serious opposition' looking likely to trouble the status quo we may be sure to see the state-machine swiftly pulling together to avert such inconvenience as a truly democratic happening.

You may well have felt anger at being so misrepresented and reacted accordingly and, if you are part of a large enough sub-section, the Political Party or candidate that you had hoped to relate to may next time pretend to care just that little bit more media-savvy, until just after the election. But, if you are hoping for real change, you may as well not have troubled to rock the boat, because you didn't.

Instead, use your vote 'responsibly,' as stipulated by the tabloid of 'your choice.' Is it any wonder that, given a referendum, so many of the disenfranchised opted instead to cast a Protest Vote?' At least the turnout was up, almost 72% we are 'consoled.' At least we gave voice to the people who "aren't racist, but..." Maybe we will opt to sanitise the oft-unspoken issue, but if we have to keep telling people that we're not racist, then we might do better to concentrate upon the outgoing message than the manner in which it is being (mis)received.

Opinion Polls, well they were never going to be to the benefit of the general public; almost from the outset they were doomed, but Protest Voting, well that's still salvageable- despite its recent mega-glitch- but beware always the neoliberal dream. Everything is up for grabs, your health, your education, your future, your children, 'your' MP, your policing, and that certainly would include your ability to effectively protest, especially if it rocks the boat.

By all means let's sail the Good Ship UK to a new location but you can be sure that the neoliberals will have landed well ahead of us, travelling tax-deductible first-class upon the best of the charter flights.

* I have assumed that we all recognise that advertising, even at it's least offensive, is merely nuanced lying.
** This denotes the Michael Moore link, probably the best aspect of this post, if one discounts Piers Morgan's presence.