So today we’ve had leaflets from the Tories and Labour. In fact, we’ve had quite a lot from the Tories; they sent one to each voter registered at this address (that’s four). Obviously they realised that we’d each want to have one to ourselves, rather than having to share. They also sent them by post, rather than just sticking them through the letter box; does the Conservative Party have nobody willing to volunteer to spend some time delivering leaflets for them?

My first complaint is about David Cameron’s statement in it. Not particularly with anything he says in it (well, okay, that too) but just the lack of any demonstrated writing ability. I hope he got someone else to write it for him, and I hope he fired that person. Somebody with a First from Oxford should know, for example, that sentences can’t start with conjunctions, and a politician should know that “Euro-MPs” are actually called MEPs.

Next is that in the section of the leaflet quoting newspaper headlines that make Labour look bad, they couldn’t find any more reputable than the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Daily Express, and the News of the World. (Well, one from the Daily Telegraph. One out of eight’s not bad, right?)

On to actual policies, rather than just the Conservative Party’s embarrassing attempts at telling people about them.

“Voting to keep the UK’s opt-out from the EU Working Time Directive, allowing people to choose how much overtime they work.”

Now, for anyone who doesn’t know, the WTD limits working hours to 48 hours a week, averaged over 17 weeks, and mandates a rest period of 11 hours in each 24 hours. That’s nearly seven hours a day, every day of the week (6 hours 51 minutes) — seven hours doesn’t sound like much, but I must say I’d quite like to have a weekend, and to have just one day off a week pushes that up to 8 hours a day. Now, I realise this is about overtime, not ordinary hours — but if I was having to work from nine in the morning until gone nine in the evening from Monday until Friday (9.6 hours over five days, plus mandatory 0.5 hours lunch break) then I don’t expect I’d be going out of my way to try to do some more.

The WTD is not intended to screw people over who want to do some overtime occasionally; it’s intended to stop people working such long hours as to be dangerous. If you’re working a 50-hour week every week for four months, then you don’t need to opt out of the maximum — you need a better manager.

They go on to say that the WTD “could cause massive problems for our NHS and emergency services”. “Could cause”? It’s been around for 15 years, don’t you think that if it was going to it would’ve done so? Aside from that, if doctors and nurses not being allowed to work 50-hour weeks is a problem for the NHS, we don’t need to let them work more — we need more doctors.

“Local Conservatives have spoken of their “shock and disgust” at the continuing scandal of our fishermen being forced to throw away millions of tons of fish into the sea every year. Our fish stocks are in a perilous state and people are shocked at the amount of fish wasted each year due to a system that is immoral and environmentally wrong.”

Well, firstly, I’m not sure that you can say that something is “environmentally wrong”. Bad for the environment, certainly. However, the Tories don’t seem to explain what the issue is — merely that something is bad. I’m going to assume that what they want is for the fishing quotas to be raised, so that the fish don’t go to waste — since that’s what they’ve asked for in the past. I’m not sure how that is better for the environment, though: whether the fish are eaten or thrown away, they’re still dead. The real solution is not to catch so many in the first place; I realise this might make some people unhappy, but they’ll be a damn sight more unhappy if they don’t and cod are hunted to extinction.

I’m also amused by their claim to be “tackling climate change”. As I mentioned earlier, we received four copies of this leaflet — obviously the Conservative Party would like to make sure that everybody knows how seriously environmental issues are taken. Four leaflets when one would’ve done is frankly ridiculous — in fact, we’d’ve been happy with none, but that would mean I’d have nothing to mock this evening.

A final, unrelated point, found in Hansard when I was researching this article. Iain Duncan-Smith described Turkey as a “secular, democratic Muslim nation” — just how is it possible to be secular and Muslim at the same time?

So the EU Parliament elections are approaching (4th of June). I was a little concerned by the number of right-wing anti-EU parties standing in the south-west region; at the very least, there are five (BNP, English Democrats, No2EU, Libertas, UKIP). That’s not counting the Tories, an independent whose policies I don’t know, various other obscure parties whose policies I’m not sure on, and ‘the Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”’, (and yes, the quote is part of the name, just like Libertas are apparently officially “Pro Democracy: Libertas.eu”, meaning they obviously have a very different idea of what “democracy” means).

The wingnuts aren’t really a concern, though, since there’s only so many right-wing loonies who can vote for them; all it’s going to do is split the vote. What I’d like to know is why are there so many different small parties all with the same goal? Do they not realise they’re shooting themselves in the foot, competing with people who have ostensibly the same goals? Are right-wing loonies particularly prone to disagreeing with other right-wing loonies to the extent that they go and form their own political party, with hookers and blackjack? Certainly there don’t seem to be any redundant parties other than the right-wing anti-EU types.

There are a couple of other parties that caught my attention. Firstly, “WAI D”, who say that ‘The name “Wai D” stands for Your Decision. (YD)’. They appear to be trying to introduce direct democracy single-handedly, by setting up “an internet site where citizens will have the chance to express, at any moment, during the entire legislative process, their own opinions”. They also claim that the entire party is run “money-free”, apparently appearing to believe that it is some heinous crime for a government to actually spend money.

The “Fair Pay Fair Trade” party are also interesting; they appear to mean well, but they have some truly hilarious policies, like establishing a single world currency, free passenger rail transport throughout Europe, abolishing “most” prisons, and phasing out private vehicles and lorries. Not that I don’t think there should be more and cheaper rail transport, less road traffic, more cycle traffic, and so on, but I doubt it’s as simple as they seem to think. Their policy on water shortages, especially, concerns me: “The EU will ban the vast bulk of imported fruit and vegetables from countries with water shortages.” — thus bringing about the economic collapse of every one of those countries, as a major source of their income disappears? Maybe not, but I really don’t think it’s as simple as they appear to believe.

I got bored before looking up most of the rest. Mebyon Kernow I already know about, but I don’t believe their specific goals are more useful than, say, the Green Party’s (they appear to be basically a watered-down version of the Greens or Lib Dems, vaguely liberal/leftish leaning, with the specific additional goal of greater self-determination for Cornwall). The Jury Team and Pensioners’ Party I just couldn’t be bothered with. The Socialist Labour Party, again, I already knew of, and likewise (obviously) Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Tory scum.

Finally, the Green Party, whom I’m planning to vote for, since they have pretty sensible policies all-round, including things like abolishing the constitutional role of the monarchy and replacing the House of Lords with an elected body, and nationalising the rail network.

Update: the People’s Republic of South Devon linked to this post.