suffragium iacta est

That kind man Mr Huppert, the Cambridge Liberal Democrat candidate, sent me his third piece of junk mail today, this one even funnier than the last two: “Until we get rid of Britain’s corrupt electoral system, the election in Cambridge is a two horse race­—between Lib Dems and Labour”. He is also keen for us to act on the assumption we clearly hold that nothing has happened since 2005 which might affect the vote, as for the second time he has printed in big letters the results in Cambridge of the last election. Perhaps, just perhaps, the levels of Labour and Conservative support might have changed since then. Finally, he cashes in the high degree of esteem The Observer has among academics in his final bid to persuade us that he is the man.

The whole process feels so anticlimactic. I finally spent last night doing a last read of the manifestos, and have accumulated so much pondering and considerations, it feels so disappointing not to be able to say more. I want a little line saying, ‘Please turn over to add any further comments’. My decision does not feel like a binary blank–cross–blank­; only the Queen has the right to that kind of unconditional support.

It has taken me until this week to realise whom I would vote for, and suffer the disappointment of finding out that, yet again, I have no opportunity to be a rebel and stay honest. Still, I have the satisfaction of knowing that the fellows and scholars of Peterhouse, with their uniform and predictable opinion, are all out en masse. The Dean had managed to even vote before me, and I saw the Master on his way back at 8.05.

I should relent a little: the Cambridge crew, perhaps in their attachment to Computer Modern Sans Quotation, have ended up using a lot of Calibri.