Nobody will disagree that we need more and better national infrastructure, education, healthcare, defence, law-enforcement, support for the arts etc etc. The question is, which party has the best chance of delivering it?
- The ones who prioritise how we can afford it
- or the ones who prioritise doing it
I'm not suggesting that voting rights should be restricted to people who stand a chance of understanding the difference between these priorities, and therefore might vote for better policies rather than hairdos. But I am suggesting that if we sell our politics with sound bites like "The cost of living crisis", and "They're the party for millionaires", or we resort to smear campaigns and highlighting party infighting (how disproportionate is the castigation of Lord Renard for a bit of harmless bottom patting!? Lighten up Britain), then we encourage people who don't get the arguments to only vote for socialist spending policies instead of ones which create net-tax-earning jobs (ie private sector). It's simply too easy to appeal to the majority (BTW lets hope the current tube strikes and other union inspired mischief continues to backfire on left-wing sympathies).
So my argument for a better result for everyone in Western style democracies (where we killed all potential insurrectionists long ago) is to assist the principle that "If you don't understand how state economics works, why vote for someone who doesn't either"? It's better not to vote than to hope that the person you believe might look after your best interests has any more of a clue how to do it than you. And the way to achieve this is to bore the part of the electorate who don't have a clue, into not voting. Make elections really, really boring!
Someone once described Harold Wilson's electioneering tactics as "Spreading apathy wherever he goes". Maybe the Tories can take a leaf out of his book. Edward Heath (the ultimate bore and 'unelectable' upper class toff) ended up winning that election for the Tories.