Second Debate, or Seventies Debate?

Afternoon all!

The verdict

So, what to make of that one? Well, if it wasn't a three-horse race before, it probably is now. Brown did a lot better, and so did Cameron, but neither of them completely battered Clegg in my mind: which will probably please Brown more than it will Cameron, because in terms of seats, he has the headstart.

In terms of who won: Brown 34%, Clegg 33%, Cameron 32%. That really is how tight it's getting. The sad thing for Cameron is: if we'd had an election in 2009, he'd have won comfortably. Now, his policies are similar, his team are the same, but the public seem to want a hung parliament, even though no-one was talking about it a year ago.

Which begs the question: will it be back to the 80's, back to the 70's, or into the unknown?

Hell hath no fury like a small party scorned

I watched the debate on BBC2, well after all the hype had died down: this media frenzy threatens to overwhelm me, as I'm sure it does for a lot of people. Having all sorts of media effectively screaming at you on a day-to-day basis for a month gets very tiring very quickly.

Thankfully, such headaches can be avoided with the local press: but not with Laura Kuenssberg, who unfortunately had a very bad time of it when getting a reaction from across the board: savaged by Angus Roberston (SNP) and Helen Mary Jones (Plaid Cymru), who argued that the BBC is "no longer the national broadcaster for Wales". Ouch!

The SNP and Plaid Cymru are fuming about not being allowed to take part in the leaders' debates, by the way. It's a controversial issue, but it seems to me that devolution has set us on the road to a break-up of the United Kingdom. Which might be a good thing: who knows until it's tried?

Some people will say no-one really wants it, but I think people living in England, myself included, underestimate the discontent with the establishment in other parts of the UK: either we include Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in all our debates, or we let them have their own country back properly, rather than this half-way devolution that is starting to annoy people on all sides. Having it both ways works temporarily, but it will only buy you so much time.

Heading back to the TV coverage, and poor old Laura then went on to interview George Osborne and Alastair Campbell, spindoctor extraordinaire, but contrived to call the latter "Alastair Darling". Oh dear. How you mistake anyone else for a man whose eyebrows do not match his hair I do not know. So not a good night for the BBC.

A Victory for Cleggmania?

What last night's debate in Bristol did was, I thought, extremely important: it showed that Clegg is not to be treated like an idol. He's good, but he's not great.

I am sorry to all those who say, "But Chris, you're a Liberal conservative: surely you like Nick Clegg! Don't you think the Lib Dems can win?" Well, it would certainly shake things up a bit, yes: Labour and the Conservatives know that too, that's why they're worried. But I have never been fully convinced by the man: he's had three years in which to persuade me, and so far, he hasn't quite done it, though it's not for lack of trying.

You see, it's Vince Cable who I relate to, not Clegg: in the same way that I'm open to anything that involves vampires, but Dracula reads better than Twilight for me. And yes, I've read Twilight: "So like, my name's Bella, and that means that this town's really boring, and everyone's the same, but this Cullen guy's different. He's mysterious. He's... a friggin' vampire. However, he is hot, he ignores me at first, and no-one else wants to date him. Shotgun undead boyfriend!" (Are you sure that's how it goes? - Ed)

Anyhoo, Cable has the measure of his opponents, knows who his allies are, and has the advantage of making the call on the banks long before anyone else did. If I do vote Lib Dem, it won't be because of Cleggmania, it'll be because I think Cable is a damn sight straighter than Osborne.

Why Brown is down: but not quite out

Clegg's got some good ideas in places - I want to see proportional representation become a reality in Britain - but as I watched the debate last night, I thought Brown had him on how to handle America. This is because Brown is a better statesman than many would like to admit. Domestically, I'll grant you, he's messed up a lot. Far too quick to take credit, far too slow to admit fault.

But the world as a whole, including America, respects him at the moment, and he's earned that respect without being like Blair was with Bush: which is just as well, as Brown does not make a very good poodle, looking much more like a bulldog. But to be serious, being able to work with both Europe and America is a very, very difficult task that at the moment, Brown is just about handling. And to say that Brown is completely useless is unfair: no politician should be underestimated.

At the risk of making this blog sounds like a running commentary on Life on Mars, the man from Fife is very much like former PM Harold Wilson was in the 70's: in theory, a spent force, but somehow still retaining the ability to stay in the mix. He is shrewder than he appears, and it would be dangerous to underestimate him: I underestimated him myself! I thought he would be gone before now. But he's not, and that is impressive for a man who hasn't got a mandate.

Call me Heath?

But let's move on to the man who could be our next Prime Minister: David Cameron, because I've decided once and for all that he is not Thatcherite. Instead, the more I listen to him, the more he becomes a latter-day Edward Heath (above): and that's not necessarily an insult.

As most level-headed Conservatives will tell you, Cameron has policies that can be compared to Thatcherism: so will any Conservative leader that fails to win three elections in a row. But he's more willing to compromise; he tries to use PR, but it doesn't always work; and he'd try to work with people in a Hung Parliament, but he'd prefer not to. Very much like Heath.

What's more, David Cameron, like Heath, will get cut to pieces if he loses, despite having huge potential. Why? Because he doesn't sell himself well. If you try and brand yourself as different, and people say you're the same thing, then something's being lost in translation: mainly because of his party's ad campaign. As one of my friends who supports Cameron said to me on Tuesday, "My word, whoever designed those posters should be shot!" He might have a point, on this evidence.

Of course, when Heath was PM in the 1970's, the world was quite different. You didn't have the internet or mobile phones then, and you most certainly didn't have Twitter or Facebook. If Heath was PM today, he would probably treat such sites with the utmost suspicion, as indeed does Cameron.

If Heath was suspicious about new technology, the public were equally suspicious about his chances as PM. Heath had five years in Opposition - from 1965 to 1970 - but didn't really make much ground against Wilson, despite a massive devaluation in the value of the pound. When he did win in the 1970 election, it was a surprise. But sadly, even with a decent majority, Heath struggled. Elements of his own party didn't like his tendency to "U-turn", and thought he should be tougher. His opponents thought he was being too tough on the unions. Like Cameron, Heath found himself damned if he did, and damned if he didn't: perhaps unfairly.

So, in February 1974, with the miners wreaking considerable havoc, and a three-day week making Britain look weak and divided, Heath snapped, and called an election. He won the most votes, but had four fewer seats than Labour: proof, if proof were needed, that our first-past-the-post system can create chaos just as much as it can prevent it.

Heath did not have the benefits of modern technology, nor of security: Downing Street was not closed to the public in those days. He tried desperately to arrange a deal, but the public would not have it. An angry mob outside No. 10 repeatedly yelled "HEATH OUT", believing that no PM could be more right-wing than he was. In 1979, of course, they were proved wrong.

Good Ideas, Difficult Times

And so it may be the same in 2010. Like Heath, Cameron has some good ideas: Britain does need more efficiency, and the idea of a big society could be good for Britain. But time controls events in a way we cannot, and Cameron is now in danger of missing the boat. He would have got the result he wanted in 2009: but the people did not clamour for Brown to go then, and Cameron, unlike Thatcher, has not quite captured the mood of his country.

One is inclined to sympathise with him slightly: he very nearly had it. He might still have it yet. But like Heath in '74, the result he dreads looks likely, and he will not have an easy time of it even if he does get his priceless majority.

I believe the public want a positive result, and that the public wants our MPs to be more open with us. If that's the case, then they need to be more open to the idea of working together, and working with smaller parties, like Plaid Cymru and the SNP, as well as parties in Northern Ireland.

Because otherwise, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will do what some of us are saying to Europe: Stop trying to tell us what to do.

This United Kingdom just got a whole lot more divided. Whoever gets in, they've got one hell of a fight on their hands.

Make that two fights.

Chris

London Calling

In response to my version of Killing in the Name Of, one of my friends on Facebook, Olivia Cunningham, pointed my attention to a story about Labour re-releasing The Jam's song "Eton Rifles", in an attempt to evoke class war on the Conservative Party.

Though personally, if we're going to use punk songs to describe the current situation, I think a single from 1979 The Clash would be more appropriate. What better way to take on the national press? Play, read, and feel my sceptic wrath, ye doom-mongering editors...



London Calling (2010)

London calling to the faraway towns,
Now Tories declare the debt must come down
Cameron calling to the underworld,
You need to get married, you boys and girls
Cameron calling, now don't look to us
Looks like New Labour has bitten the dust
Cameron calling, for his 10% swing
We want him as king, all the tabloids sing

The good times are fading, it's all negative spin
Clampdowns expected, the budget's growing thin
Airports stop running, but I have no fear
Cause Cameron's got ideas that he, launched by the river

Lib Dems calling to the immigration zone
Forget it brother, we can go at it alone
Lib Dems calling to the zombies of Clegg
Quit all the hype, he's pulling all your legs

Lib Dems calling, they're demanding more clout
But while they're campaigning, there's a rumour getting out
Lib Dems calling, see it's pie in the sky
Except for that deal no-one's willing to try

The good times are fading, it's all negative spin
Brown's fall expected, the budget's growing thin
Hung Parliament terror, but I have no fear
Cause Nick Clegg and Cable say they, they'll somehow deliver

The whole thing's corrupted, the Sun's sounding grim,
Voters stop caring, and no-one really wins,
We can't have the Euro, we don't want you here,
Just cut all the taxes and then, you're onto a winner

Now get this!

Thatcher calling, we all must vote blue,
'Cos you know what she said? Well, some of it was true!

Thatcher calling from beyond her own time
Take down all the unions, and crack down on crime

Thatcher Calling

Well frankly you can all go hang

go hang

go hang...

Chris

Isolation Is Not The Only Route

I am rather gloomy about the state of Britain. Many people are.

But I am gloomy because, yet again, this country seems to think being Eurosceptic to the point of xenophobia is a good idea, with tonight's BBC News report saying that "A tough stance on immigration is a popular one". Even though there appears to be a lack of consensus between Boris Johnson and David Cameron on the idea of an amnesty.

Shall we just pretend it isn't there then? That this is a continent that can help us? No, we should all be a bunch of cynics, apparently. Europe is bad, the EU is bad, the Euro should be made a swearword, and we shouldn't be so closely linked with what some see as a big-government super state.

That's why we're allies with the United States of America, a country that is made up of 50 separate states, spanning the width of an entire continent and several time zones: a super state, if you will, that uses the same currency in every state.

So if that "super state" is all right with us, how come the idea of another "super state" isn't? Oh, because they gave us a massive loan in the 1940's when we were bankrupt. Presumably if Europe gave us all a fiver we'd stop bashing it so much?

It seems to me - and I would like to say otherwise - that a lot of people in this country believe that any foreigner coming to this shore wanting our help is, effectively, guilty until proven innocent. Whoever it is may well be waving the white flag: but to quote Lord of the Rings, what has it got in its pocketses?

Using that example, universities shouldn't give students an offer until after they've got their results, setting back everyone's education by a full year: otherwise they risk having to admit students who didn't get exactly the right grades, which would be dreadful. So using this capping system that's being proposed, and applying it to universities, it's not how talented you are; it's how quickly you can send off your application. And even then, it would be assumed that you were only going to University to be a burden on the state and have fun at taxpayers' expense, rather than to make a benefit to society.

Oh, and it'd have to be just A Levels by the way. I mean, we couldn't have you getting an education using the International Baccalaureate, could we now? I mean, that would imply that there's an alternative to the British way of doing things, and as we know, the British always know best.

And better yet, it would mean that Oxford and Cambridge wouldn't have to waste their time on candidates whose extracurricular activities, under that sort of system, evidently count for nothing.

Doesn't sound so good in those terms, does it? How would you feel if you were told your talents didn't matter: that it was quantity, not quality? That your University constantly told you: "Well, you might want to get a degree, but frankly we believe that you only want to be here in order to waste taxpayers' money?"

If my University told me that, regardless of my degree, I would be fuming. It would be arrogance of the most toxic variety.

And if Britain wants to parade such toxic arrogance in the form of its Government, and wants to make me feel as if the only true Briton is a Eurosceptic, then I will logically conclude that my pro-European views count for nothing, and will thus take them elsewhere.

Perhaps to Germany: where not everything is perfect, I grant you. But where the trains run on time, the people are keen to learn about your culture whilst remembering theirs, and the Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has recently been re-elected despite the recession. The similarity to Cameron? She's the head of a centre-right party. The difference? She's happy to work in a coalition government.

So why can't Cameron? Is it his strong principles, or stubborn contempt for the alternative?

Because at the moment, it looks like the latter.

Chris

Tabloid Madness

Yup, I think that pretty much sums up my dislike of tabloids.

However, please don't think I've gone completely anti-Cameron: heck, I even bought the Times today. And yes, it may be owned by Murdoch, but as far as I can tell it's the closest thing the press has to a balanced, centre-right view. So for that reason, I'm happy to consider its stance.

The reason why I like the Times is because it's also not afraid to ask questions of every political party. It has not followed Cameron blindly: it has constructively shown him where he has gone wrong, and pointed out what he's doing right. Though it may well be a blow to Conservatives who read it to find that some generals back the Lib Dems' views on Trident. I've had to link you to the Telegraph, because annoyingly, you now have to pay to read the Times online. Bah.

I feel I should also make my current stance clear. I am a Liberal Conservative: I admire Kenneth Clarke just as much as I admire Vince Cable. I do not believe all Tories are the same: but I am critical of those who exude arrogance, such as those who say I will be wasting my vote if I happen to vote for another party.

I want a strong government, but I do not see why that cannot be the same as a coalition government. And the Conservatives should realise that strong majorities, such as the ones seen in 1997, 2001, and 2005, have resulted in the most corrupt Parliament on record, with a record number of MPs being forced to resign. As much as I hate to say it, the majority isn't working: because, thanks to the two-party system, it's not a majority.

Oh, and the last government with a decent record on the economy? Well, as far as I can tell, that was under John Major between 1993 and 1997, when his small majority was lost even before the landslide defeat.

He's supposedly the worst leader the Conservatives have ever had. But he knew how to win an election in 1992, which is more than three of his successors did; he guided Britain out of recession; he governed the country for six and a half years; and he did it without PR, taking on a hostile crowd at Luton with a determination to let people hear what he had to say. His opponents said his low-tech tactics couldn't work: he proved them wrong, and for that, he should be respected.

Could Cameron possibly learn from him? In terms of dodging eggs, almost certainly.

Chris

Where Does He Stand?

Morning all!

On one of my posts concerning David Cameron, my friend Katherine Kenward, who frequently has the upper hand on me in political debates, told me that

"I am inclined to disagree with your thoughts on a return to an old Thatcherite style!"

Clearly, she has a very good point: David Cameron is not a politician of the Thatcher mould. He is his own man, he says there is such a thing as society, and he is clearly aware that some people do not like the idea of returning to the 1980's.

So it is extremely disappointing that some people in his party think otherwise.

How, I ask you, is this not Thatcherite rhetoric?

It reeks of the stuff. It sounds as if Norman Tebbit, he of the "Get on your bike and look for work" soundbite, was the author: and with the former Cabinet minister voicing concern about the Conservative's position in the polls, perhaps it was.

And even if I did fully agree with the idea of a do-it-yourself, laissez-faire society, the layout is shocking. Cameron is half in the shot; the people behind him are blurred; the typeface is crude and off-putting; and the "Vote Conservative" tagline sounds like an afterthought. It's almost as if someone's gone "Hang on, we'll look like a tabloid if we don't put that in!" It says a lot when the Conservative Party's best poster is a copy of someone else's.

But here is the despicable element of it: it is not Cameron saying it. It is an element of his party getting twitchy about having to work in a hung parliament, which gives them nightmares of the 1974 variety. So some of his team have decided that a shift to the right is needed, lest they end up like Edward Heath, the man who lost three General Elections and promptly sulked.

Cameron is a smarter man than Heath: he certainly has better PR. Yet for some mad reason, he has fallen for this alienating, Daily Mail rhetoric that threatens to make me write him off: though I would argue that it is crucial to remain impartial where possible. After all, he undoubtedly has the potential to do very well in politics.

But - and I feel as if I almost have to yell this - Why? Has the man or the party forgotten the cardinal rule of elections? You do not change your tone half-way through a campaign!

Why did John Kerry lose in 2004? Because he flip-flopped while Dubya remained consistent. Why did Labour get crushed in 1983? Because their former leader, James Callaghan, criticised their defence policy at a time when Thatcher had just won the Falklands War: proof that a left-wing party can also be guilty of such an error.

And have the Conservatives forgotten that the reason for their defeat in 1997 was not because of the economy, which was recovering under the brilliant Chancellorship of Kenneth Clarke, but because of divisions between senior Cabinet colleagues? "I lead my party, he follows his" was the stinging remark directed at John Major by Tony Blair: and whilst I do not for one moment declare myself an admirer of the man who has liar hidden in his name, he had a valid point.

Thatcher, on the other hand, was a great leader of the Conservative Party because she did not automatically tow the party line, and yet still managed to unite it against the threat of militant unions. She was radical; she was not part of the establishment; she irritated her colleagues. But like Churchill, she was the right person at the right time: though sadly, both were humiliated for their efforts.

You may well despise Thatcher: having read about her, I can see why you might. But it is the Conservative Party that ousted her in 1990 which I find more despicable. Their decision to sack her was the ultimate act of cutting off your nose to spite your face: and they wonder why it still haunts them.



Major; Hague; Duncan-Smith; Howard; all tried to following the party line, yet they spoke in terms similar to Thatcher. It was a recipe for disaster.

So I was pleased when Cameron started to differ from this. He was an outsider himself in 2005: few people expected him to beat David Davis, but he did. He brought the Conservatives back to the centre, it appeared. He also brought back Kenneth Clarke in order to show that Liberal Conservatives had a future in the party. He oh-so-nearly had my vote: like him, I was tiring of Gordon Brown, and remained unconvinced by Nick Clegg.

But this poster of his? It is not Thatcherism with a social conscience: if it was, it would sound sympathetic. It is, ironically, the Conservatism of Edward Heath: trying to modernise, but in the end, having to U-turn the Quattro when people start asking questions.

And frankly, it leaves me deeply puzzled as to the party's message. I can believe Conservatism is good for me, but how can I if I don't know what it is? Is it Thatcherite or not?

I, at least, can briefly spare the luxury of not knowing my exact position. But for a man who you would presume is going to vote for himself, such luxuries are long gone. He needs to be decisive, not change his political broadcast at the last minute. I like what he's saying about strong values: but saying "Vote for Change: but not that change, that change is bad, you can only have the change I want" leaves me, as a voter, saying "Whaaaaaat?"



Maybe there's still hope for the Conservatives: with several of their candidates being excellent servants of our country, I do not want to see them lose because of someone else's mistake.

But this mistake has been made. And if it is not rectified - if Cameron allows parts of his party to continue peddling hatred - then I am afraid that hatred, however unjustified it may be, will be peddled in return by the electorate. They do not treat the divided kindly, as the Labour Party of the 1980s found out.

You can tell me to vote for change: that's fair enough. But to then say I can only vote for the change that means a Conservative majority?

Will the real David Cameron please stand up. Either be prepared to work with other parties, including the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, and keep your party in the centre as you claim you want to, or declare yourself as wanting to be like Thatcher and thus admit you do not represent forward change.

I will honestly not mind if you admit the latter: it would at least be honest. But trying to be both will end with alienation on both the left and the right, and confusion in the centre.

In other words, it will lead to a hung parliament. And on the basis of what they have been saying, Cameron and his party will be the victim of it, just as Edward Heath was in 1974.

Chris

For Those Who Put Morals First

Evening all,

Just a quick post this one, but yesterday my vicar's sermon emphasised a point that I think is important: you should not have to compromise what you believe when you go to vote, regardless of your belief.

With this in mind, I've been looking at the Christian Institute, which presents its views on how MPs vote morally, allows you to look at your local MP's record, and encourages you to vote for the candidate who has similar beliefs to yours: so for example, if you think that assisted suicide unfairly makes the elderly feel like a burden on society, then you might be tempted to vote for Gordon Brown. That's just one example.

And no, as far as I know, there is not a Not-All-Atheists-Are-Like-Richard-Bloody-Dawkins Party. Though I imagine some of my friends would vote for it if they could.

Night all!

Chris

Cable In the Name Of

Well doggone. Looks like the Lib Dems can actually take the lead in a poll.

Yessir, that Nick Clegg sure would be a mighty fine leader of this little ol' nation of ours. I ain't braggin' or nothin', but he's certainly the man to be takin' us forward on this Facebook group an'...

Woah woah woah, back up, back up. I am a fan of any group that encourages people to vote, but this sounds dangerously like Obama-mania to me.

Not that I dislike Obama you understand: but I like him because of his level-headed, no-nonsense attitude, not his ability to make people say "I agree with Barack." Obama has done well in the face of adversity, but he had to battle across the country just to win the Democrat nomination.

Similarly, Sarah Palin has attracted a huge following because of her style and her ability to get a media reaction, but that's not what scares me about her: what scares me is her approach to foreign policy. The person who decides to vote for Nick Clegg, but doesn't actually know who the candidate for the Lib Dems in their area is, should not necessarily change their mind completely: but one TV debate does not a country fix, though it might be a start.

And yet, for many people I know, it is akin to that fantastic single that I listened to and found slightly repetitive. Although admittedly this version is amusing.



Now, while I applaud such an achievement in bringing down the X Factor (Simon Cowell is good at what he does: what a pity it's so crudely staged), I have to say: the song itself is actually not that great. Donating all the money to charity is definitely a good call, but I think I would have preferred to buy something like Play That Funky Music White Boy, or Canned Heat by Jamiroquai. So to me, it was good but not great.

Furthermore, Rage Against The Machine. When was the last time you read about a great moment in civil rights and gone, "Oh yeah, the people who were ranting and raving, they had the right idea"? Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream speech had more of an impact than any of Malcolm X's; Gandhi's hunger strikes worked far better than any British machine-gun in achieving justice; and it was the Suffragists who convinced the moderates that women should have the vote, not the bomb-throwing Suffragettes. Not that they weren't impressively badass, mind.

So yes, with regards to those who have invited me to join "We got Rage Against the Machine to #1, we can get the Lib Dems into office!": I appreciate your enthusiasm for democracy, I admire your willingness to get people to register to vote, and I commend your refreshing optimism. But forgive me if I give myself a week or so before deciding on which way I vote. I am all for reform: but as Obama has proved, a smooth and measured approach works wonders.

Finally, in tribute to the people who set the group up, here's my idea for some alternative lyrics. Click on the version above, and I daresay you'll be rocking out like Tony Blair. Or not.

Cable In The Name Of

Do-do-do-do-do-do
Do-do-do-do-do-do

Do-do-do, Call me Tony,
Do-do-do, Call me Dave!
Do-do-do, Call me Tony,
Do-do-do, Call me Dave!
Do-do-do, We want change now,
Do-do-do, So do we!
Do-do-do, War Inquiries,
Do-do-do, Lord Ashcroft!

We-can't-go-on-like-this, you-need-to-vote-for-us,
Wait-there's-another-way? Could-this-mean

CABLE IN THE NAME OF!

Some of those who back Dave now,
Are the same that backed Labour

Some of those who back Dave now,
Are the same that backed Thatcher

Some of those who back Gordon,
Are involved in corruption

Some of those who back Gordon,
Are the ones who back Trident

Ugh! Yeah! CABLE IN THE NAME OF
Yeah! Woo! CABLE IN THE NAME OF

So why's it one or the other?
So why's it one or the other?
So why does Lib Dem mean Labour?
So why does Lib Dem mean Cameron?
So why's it got to be Gordon?
So why's it got to be Harman?
So why's it got to be Cameron?
So why's it got to be Osborne?
So why's it got to be this guy?
Who says I can't vote for this guy?
You say I can't vote for this guy?
I say I can vote for this guy!

They can lie, but you decide
Whose ballot you cross, that's the voter's right

They can lie, but can't deny
That the power is yours, don't give up the fight
They can lie, but you decide

Whose ballot you cross, that's the voter's right
They can lie, but can't deny
That the power is yours, don't give up the fight

Cameron says join the government
Just so long as it's his one

Cameron wants to charm voters
I suggest better posters
Brown says you can all trust him
That's why Mandelson's with him
Then a guy called Vince calls them
He's a man who votes Lib Dem!

CABLE IN THE NAME OF
CABLE IN THE NAME OF

So what do the Lib Dems stand for?
They stand for change that works for ya
They stand for scrapping the Cold War
They stood against the Iraq War
They stand for the right of recall
They stand for bein' proportional
Their amnesty's unconditional
They want to tax all the rich more
They won't accept pass-the-parcel
So now you've heard their proposal
You can say it's disgraceful
You can say they'll doom us all
But I believe in Vince Cable!

They can lie, but you decide
Whose ballot you cross, that's the voter's right

They can lie, but can't deny
That the power is yours, don't give up the fight
They can lie, but you decide
Whose ballot you cross, that's the voter's right
They can lie, but can't deny
That the power is yours, don't give up the fight
Come on!

Hurgh! Yeah!

You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me!
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me!
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me!
You Don't Make My Voting Choice For Me!

VOTERPOWER! YEAH!

Thanks for reading!

Chris