UK General Elections 05-05-05
- Thread starter Full Lotus
- Start date
grokit23
God mintsmak
JPsychodelicacy said:
Your stereotyping of voters is funny...
I do know a fair few voters who used to vote tory who now won't, same with ex-labour supporters. There are plenty of ex tories who've seen the winds of change and realise that they no longer offer much and want other options. There are floating voters in the Labour and Tory camps, combined they are enough to make significant changes.
Amongst the problems I have is one you mentioned earlier, the feeling of having been repeatedly let down by the present labour government. You keep on insisting though that they've got our backs. Thing is, that there is no way on earth that I will vote for them again, they've repeatedly proved themselves to not be interested in what is good for the people or the will of the people, as well as just not being worthy of our trust. So if things do need to be shaken up, then shake them up, but don't just go for more of the same (because it's supposedly better than the "only alternative") old crap.
Georgie, me blonde too, should we hang around bars until some nice man explains it all to us?
canyouhearthegoblins
jowjiii
yesh please!!!!!
ps Jaw-G :
love it!! (and goz wasnt there on friday :lol1: )
ps Jaw-G :
love it!! (and goz wasnt there on friday :lol1: )
JPsychodelicacy
Studio Elf
grokit23 said:
And also true, especially if you come from the same suburban shite'ole I do!
The majority of Tory voters I know could n't give a toss abotu the winds of change as long as they don't have to look at poor people every day and get their taxes cut.
But not enough of a change to elect Charles Kennedy PM - *this time round*. The only alternative is Howard, which is why I'm holding my nose and voting Labour... this time.
The problem with the LibDems is that their entire schtick is based upon being somewhere inbetween (Old) Labour and the Tories, which means that the majority of the electorate perceive that while they know what the Libs are *not*, they don't perceive that they're actually *for* anything.
I believe that they're doing the best they can do with the resources available. Prior to the 'Thatcher Revolution' the divcide between perceived and actual power was pretty much split evenly between the government and big business. Since Thatcher, the pendulum has swung heavily and almost irrevocably into the big business camp. Remember that the Tory Party of the Thatcher era tended to be wealthy industrialists and former bankers who happened to be MPs, so they just continually abrogated themselves more money and power.
The state this has left us in means that every time the governemnt wants to back a 'social justice' initiative, it has to prove that it can do it without treading on the toes of the megacorporations - who will withdraw funding and use their media connections to destabilise an incumbent government and get a more compliant (read : Tory) government in. The whole reason Blair cosied up to Bush in the first place was to prevent the Tories from building a transatlantic alliance with the Republicans (and Murdoch) capable of generating a Tory victory in 2001 - something that Michael Howard was actively working on during the last days of the Major government.
I believe that they are delivering, but they are delivering more slowly than I would like. As my Tory-voting uncle said though, this is the real world, and I'd better just get used to the way it works.
They don't need to be 'shaken up' - we're doing OK... certainly better than many countries in our position. Once we're safely in Europe, and have a clear way out of this parasitic relationship with the States, we can do even better (it made me proud to see the A380 fly today). This will not happen under a Tory government - and if too many defect from Labour to the LibDems, a Tory government is what we'll have - you only have to look at the current polls to see that the Libs on 20% aren't even in with a sniff of displacing the Tories, let alone Labour.
J.
JPsychodelicacy said:
Jesus Joe ... you obviously know a bunch of w**kers. Not all Tory voters are that bad ya know ... some of them even have a brain.
The point is though that if libdems took themselves to a 25-30% seat holding in parliament then you have 70-75%% to split between labour and the cons ... this will be, more or less, an even split. And that would mean no political party has majority in parliament ... This gives the lib dems an INCREDIBLE amount of power as they, essentially, have the final say ... who needs them to actually be in government?
I still disagree that a vote for lib dem is a conservative gain and a labour loss. Its a loss to labour AND to conservatives whatever you have been led to believe by the sloane rangers you, evidently, spend a lot of time with ...
You are spending as much time believing the media wank as you are trying to suggest that all the braindead voters are doing. Open your eyes ...
Barclay (Dark Angel)
Ninja Hippy
QUOTE=JPsychodelicacy]
They don't need to be 'shaken up' - we're doing OK... certainly better than many countries in our position. Once we're safely in Europe, and have a clear way out of this parasitic relationship with the States, we can do even better (it made me proud to see the A380 fly today). This will not happen under a Tory government - and if too many defect from Labour to the LibDems, a Tory government is what we'll have - you only have to look at the current polls to see that the Libs on 20% aren't even in with a sniff of displacing the Tories, let alone Labour.
J.[/QUOTE]
Chuffin' 'eck mate. You're making a lot of assumptions there. "Once we're safely in Europe." When do you reckon that's going to happen? At best, it's a very uncertain question as to whether the UK referendum will go the way of joining the EU Constitution, and even joining the Euro is open to doubt - at least for the foreseeable future.
The "parasitic relationship" with the US is one of Blair's making. I can't see even Howard sucking Junior's cock in the way Blair does.
What gets me is that such is the disgusting state of politics in this country that people like you feel compelled to vote tactically. That's not democracy working as it should. Not only will less than 25% of total potential voters vote for the winning party, but a substantial proportion of that 25% will have voted because they hate the opposition parties even more than the party they've tactically voted for. Jeez, what does that say...
I had a look at the Beeb site earlier today, and found this out :-
Labour 36% = 371 seats
Tory 34% = 191
Lib Dem 24% = 62
Other 6% = 22
Overall Lab majority = 96
Labour 34% = 329 seats
Tory 36% = 235
Lib Dem 24% = 60
Other 6% = 22
Overall Lab majority = 12
Hardly democratic, is it?
OK, it doesn't take into account tactical voting in marginals, or issues specific to various regions like Scotland, but all the same... Can you imagine the furore that would result from the second of these scenarios?
To be honest, I don't really see a great deal of difference between Labour and Tory.
Greater border and asylum control - tick
More school discipline - tick
More Police - tick
Involvement in foreign wars - tick
Greater choice in education and health - tick
Economy - both parties sexing it up - tick
Howard's a racist and a liar. Blair's a blinkered evangelist and a liar.
No doubt you'll point to differences in policy in such areas as criminal sentencing, or "vouchers" for schools and hospital care, but Blair's been doing away with the rule of law for quite a while now (how staggeringly dangerous is that! ), and student loans are a particularly bad idea. Not even the Tories want to imprison without trial.
Mate, they're as bad as each other. I can't understand your terror of Howard given Blair's track record. I'd understand more if you were fearful of both of them equally.
I know I'm to going to convince you, just as you're not going to convince me, but I can see a lot of shit hitting fans as the political process goes from bad to worse.
At least voting with your conscience for the party that most closely reflects your views means you've got some chance, however small, of making a real difference. And if there's a chance of a hung Parliament, I'm all for it.
Hugs,
Barclay (Who still hasn't made his mind up which way to vote - or even if he's going to vote. They're all of a particularly low quality.)
They don't need to be 'shaken up' - we're doing OK... certainly better than many countries in our position. Once we're safely in Europe, and have a clear way out of this parasitic relationship with the States, we can do even better (it made me proud to see the A380 fly today). This will not happen under a Tory government - and if too many defect from Labour to the LibDems, a Tory government is what we'll have - you only have to look at the current polls to see that the Libs on 20% aren't even in with a sniff of displacing the Tories, let alone Labour.
J.[/QUOTE]
Chuffin' 'eck mate. You're making a lot of assumptions there. "Once we're safely in Europe." When do you reckon that's going to happen? At best, it's a very uncertain question as to whether the UK referendum will go the way of joining the EU Constitution, and even joining the Euro is open to doubt - at least for the foreseeable future.
The "parasitic relationship" with the US is one of Blair's making. I can't see even Howard sucking Junior's cock in the way Blair does.
What gets me is that such is the disgusting state of politics in this country that people like you feel compelled to vote tactically. That's not democracy working as it should. Not only will less than 25% of total potential voters vote for the winning party, but a substantial proportion of that 25% will have voted because they hate the opposition parties even more than the party they've tactically voted for. Jeez, what does that say...
I had a look at the Beeb site earlier today, and found this out :-
Labour 36% = 371 seats
Tory 34% = 191
Lib Dem 24% = 62
Other 6% = 22
Overall Lab majority = 96
Labour 34% = 329 seats
Tory 36% = 235
Lib Dem 24% = 60
Other 6% = 22
Overall Lab majority = 12
Hardly democratic, is it?
OK, it doesn't take into account tactical voting in marginals, or issues specific to various regions like Scotland, but all the same... Can you imagine the furore that would result from the second of these scenarios?
To be honest, I don't really see a great deal of difference between Labour and Tory.
Greater border and asylum control - tick
More school discipline - tick
More Police - tick
Involvement in foreign wars - tick
Greater choice in education and health - tick
Economy - both parties sexing it up - tick
Howard's a racist and a liar. Blair's a blinkered evangelist and a liar.
No doubt you'll point to differences in policy in such areas as criminal sentencing, or "vouchers" for schools and hospital care, but Blair's been doing away with the rule of law for quite a while now (how staggeringly dangerous is that! ), and student loans are a particularly bad idea. Not even the Tories want to imprison without trial.
Mate, they're as bad as each other. I can't understand your terror of Howard given Blair's track record. I'd understand more if you were fearful of both of them equally.
I know I'm to going to convince you, just as you're not going to convince me, but I can see a lot of shit hitting fans as the political process goes from bad to worse.
At least voting with your conscience for the party that most closely reflects your views means you've got some chance, however small, of making a real difference. And if there's a chance of a hung Parliament, I'm all for it.
Hugs,
Barclay (Who still hasn't made his mind up which way to vote - or even if he's going to vote. They're all of a particularly low quality.)
JPsychodelicacy
Studio Elf
Barclay (Dark Angel) said:
Better than the Tories' alternatives of sitting on our arse, or worse, joining FTAA and letting the Yanks bleed us even harder!
With all due respect, that's a load of old cobblers. Thatcher had her head stuck so far up Ronnie's arse I'm surprised he didn't appear to have two heads, likewise John Major and Bush Sr (I presume you're aware of Major's position at Carlyle earning him a cool few million - spoils from backing Gulf War I).
No, but it's the democracy we've got and as a pragmatist who takes an active interest in politics I have to work within it.
That representative democracy is the 'least worst' system of governence, rather than the panacea that certain elements paint it as.
Just goes to show how categoric the rejection of the Tory party was in 1997 and 2001... maybe they'll learn to be less arrogant - but I doubt it. I think Howard redefined chutzpah last night when he attacked old Tone over Iraq - remember this was the guy who was *actively seeking Tory-Republican links* during the Clinton years.
Yes - and I'd laugh like a drain watching the Tories piss and moan.
I'd be the first to admit that the Tory-lite element of New Labour gives me pause for reflection. However, as long as we have a media in this country that convinces the populace to vote against their own interests for the benefit of the rich, and/or successfully distracts them with straw men (immigration/asylum/crime), then Labour are going to have to keep doing it in order to attract enough votes to stay in power.
The important thing for me is that at least Labour are going in the wrong direction at a controllable speed - the Tories will do as they did last time, flogging off the few assets this country has left (see NHS, public schools) to the wealthy asset-strippers at a disturbing rate and retire forthwith to their Cayman Island tax havens, leaving us to pick up the pieces in a newly-minted Third-World country.
Howard will be PM for the whole of the next term. Blair will not. Especially in light of last night's 'revelations' on the AG's opinion of the legality of the Iraq invasion, I suspect he will be seen as damaged goods and asked to bow out gracefully for the good of the party and the country.
I'm still convinced that this is a lip-service thing to placate the Yanks - one thing I will guarantee is as soon as the Yanks apply the thumbscrews to a Tory government, they'll be asking 'How high'? Yes, student loans are a bad idea, but the alternative is a blanket tax hike or to watch our universities crumble. The suburban NIMBYs aren't going to want the former, and the latter kind of negates the point anyway.
I'm surprised I have to point this out to you Barcs, but as I fredequently point out to the Yanks, we're not voting for a PM, we're voting for a party. Unlike the States, we don't vote for a Prime Minister directly. The party that most reflects my views (with the exception of the sop to the US) remains the Labour Party. The Liberals have some good ideas, but have yet to form them coherently enough - I'm hoping that they will if and when they become the primary opposition. The Greens make a lot of sense, but their opposition to the EU shoots them in the foot for me.
And yes, I'm fearful of Blair personally - he's been in the job too long. Howard and the Tories scare me on a fundamental level though - I still remember their witch-hunts against single parents, and as the product of a single-parent family that cut me deep, to the point where I will never forgive them, or rest until they are as marginal in the British electoral system as the BNP they seem to be aping more and more.
But then I think of how much worse it could be. My faith's in Gordon - he's done a good job and deserves a crack at the top spot.
Voting conscience in a first-past-the-post system is somewhat akin to urinating contrary to a strong airflow, to my mind. My conscience takes charge of my actions issue-by-issue... I'm not about to allow us to be subjected to the hell of another Tory government just to try and prove a point.
Dude, I'm with you - I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.
In an ideal world I'd be abstaining too, but I feel we have too much to lose.
J.
canyouhearthegoblins
jowjiii
looks like mr b may be in a spot of bother having seen the evening standard :unsure:
not that it will make any diffence
not that it will make any diffence
Barclay (Dark Angel)
Ninja Hippy
JPsychodelicacy said:
Well, we have a distinct area of agreement. Last night's revelations have damaged Blair irrevocably. It's hard to imagine how he'll be able to remain PM/President ;-) for more than an interval of time for decencies sake.
Re your point about voting for a party, not a PM. Despite your surprise, I disagree. Increasingly, and undoubtedly throughout Balir's 2 terms policy has been made by him, and his team of unelected intimates. Indeed, his time at the helm has been characterised by his making up policy, and dragging his party behind him. Iraq is a perfect example amongst many others I could give. He ignored military advice, foreign office advice, cabinet office advice, many of his cabinet colleagues (to the point where they didn't even see a lot of the most important documentation), and "ordinary" Labour party MPs, and party members. Behaving in this manner is not unique to Blair. Thatcher was just about as bad.
In short he behaved just like a President. Whilst in theory we're meant to be voting for a particular party, in practice we're not. We're voting for a president. I wish more people would openly recognise the point. It's one that needs to be brought into the open, because that's the only way something can be done about it.
Hugs,
Barclay
Stuoolong
Professionally fluffy
You might be voting for a party, but unless you are a member of said party, you have no say in how it is run. Including who is the leader and their style. So effectively, voting for labour is saying "I want Blair to be leader/president" because that's who the labour party have decided on.
onestone
Member
- Messages
- 3,722
- Reaction score
- 2,771
To the 26.83% non-voters
Can I butt in here and address the 11 people who said they will not vote or will spoil their vote. Please don't do that. Yes I agree that they are all bastards, in fact I think that as soon as someone puts a deposit and becomes a political candidate, s/he should be immediately taken to the nearest lampost and strung up because they are corrupt or soon will be. The point is your vote will make a difference, your no-vote will not.
I just realised the elections are 05/05/05, surprised the bastard didn't make it 666.
Can I butt in here and address the 11 people who said they will not vote or will spoil their vote. Please don't do that. Yes I agree that they are all bastards, in fact I think that as soon as someone puts a deposit and becomes a political candidate, s/he should be immediately taken to the nearest lampost and strung up because they are corrupt or soon will be. The point is your vote will make a difference, your no-vote will not.
I just realised the elections are 05/05/05, surprised the bastard didn't make it 666.
trancetheory
♥♪♫
This is not true, infact the problem is the generalised apathy of our nation, you will find that your local MP's are very open to discussion about allot of topics, they may not agree, but they are not so far from you as most people think, infact a letter and a phone call is all it takes. You can make a diffrence to your local area, and in effect to the 'main' government....the question is, can you be bothered?
Dont Assume that the Government is a far away System you cant change and control, you can and you should. Use Your Vote :P Dont Waste It!
Even if you dont agree with all the policies being presented to you, do a bit of research, talk to the MP's and get to know the councils in your area.
O
Ott^
Guest
onestone said:
With all due respect Mr Onestone, I'm willing to bet that one of the bigger post-election news stories will be along the lines of;
"Record Low Turnout - Crisis in our Democracy?"
Until they provide a "None of the above." option on the ballot they can all kiss my sweaty ballbag.
The question;
"Which of these oily shysters do you least loathe?"
is no basis for a system of government, and the only honest and honourable option for somebody like me is to abstain.
All of this tactical voting nonsense is faintly ludicrous. To paraphrase a few of you;
"I actually support the Lib Dems but they can't win so I'm not going to vote for them cos they Tories might get in."
Jesus H Christ on a Fucking Skateboard!!
The reason they can't win is that their supporters are too scared to bloody vote for them!! THAT is the single most cowardly viewpoint imaginable. Nobody who holds that opinion is in any position to lecture me on my constitutional duty.
So what if the sodding Tories get in - let em get in. It'll be fun.
Those Poll Tax marches I went to were a fucking good day out. More to the point - do you really foresee any appreciable difference between them and any of the others?
The point being missed here is that Rupert Fucking Murdoch has more power and influence in any corner of the world than Blair, Kennedy or Howard put together - and I don't see his name on any ballot paper.
You can all fry your braincells deciding who you'd like to run the country, but meanwhile the people that actually DO run things are over there, carrying on with business as usual, totally indifferent to which colour the government of the day choose to paint their manifesto.
All this "your vote will make a difference" crap really annoys me, because it is blatently obvious that it won't.
The only real protest - the only real way to express your disgust at the nepotistic and corrupt shambles we call a system of government is to refuse to participate and withold your endorsement of the the whole fucking thing.
[/RANT]
- Messages
- 13,131
- Reaction score
- 985
Ott^ said:
Glad someone said it
- Messages
- 13,131
- Reaction score
- 985
OK, if the country were to vote as psy-forum has done so far(without the not going to vote/spoil ballot paper etc), then the results would be as follows:
Lib Dems 53.3%
Green/Other 40%
Lab 3.3 %
Con 3.3 %
Translated into seats (courtesy BBC website seat calculator), would be as follows:
Lib Dems 580 seats
Green/Other 66 seats
Lab 0 seats
Con 0 Seats
If you take account of the people that aren't going to vote/spoil ballot paper etc, then they make up 26.83% of the electorate, which would equate to a turnout of 73.17%. If there was a party/parties to reflect the views of these people, then the seating arrangement could be as follows:
Lib Dem 93 seats
Green/Other/Not voting etc 526 seats
Lab 0 seats
Con 0 seats
Shame the BBC only have an other category...... Now imagine if the country voted like Psy-forum.....
Lib Dems 53.3%
Green/Other 40%
Lab 3.3 %
Con 3.3 %
Translated into seats (courtesy BBC website seat calculator), would be as follows:
Lib Dems 580 seats
Green/Other 66 seats
Lab 0 seats
Con 0 Seats
If you take account of the people that aren't going to vote/spoil ballot paper etc, then they make up 26.83% of the electorate, which would equate to a turnout of 73.17%. If there was a party/parties to reflect the views of these people, then the seating arrangement could be as follows:
Lib Dem 93 seats
Green/Other/Not voting etc 526 seats
Lab 0 seats
Con 0 seats
Shame the BBC only have an other category......
Now imagine if the country voted like Psy-forum.....
canyouhearthegoblins
jowjiii
i vote for the party that will reduce taxes for those trying to pay off a student loan
they make us pay shed loads of cash to get an education, and then cripple us
they make us pay shed loads of cash to get an education, and then cripple us
trancetheory
♥♪♫
would be nice, except that I think the LibDems are a little far fetched in their ideas (ie difficult to implement, and will have allot of opposition), and I decieded if i was gonna go far fetched, whats the point of only goin half way?..so I will be voting green
trancetheory
♥♪♫
dont agree at all, what you are forgeting is the fact that no one is to small to make a diffrence, if you believe in somthing DO IT, dont just sit around complaining about it, thats crap, and pointless......
if you say so lol
The fact is this nation is to apathetic, and far to interested in personal gain and comfort to really make a diffrence to the way this world works. Thats the Problem, not the politicians or the bussiness men and women, its us, as a nation thats the problem
Stuoolong
Professionally fluffy
The people who in this election are planning to spoil ballot papers would be standing as candidates themselves.
This is of course the only true way to make a difference if you don't trust any of the other candidates.
The reason I don't do it myself is that the whole culture of Westminster life seems to revolve around deceit, money-grabbing and covering one's own back. No one trusts politicians, least of all independent candidates, and I'm afraid I don't have the energy to fight all my life against that backdrop.
Whatever altruistic reasons people have for getting into politics, when they get up to the top jobs they have almost invariably become corrupt in one way or another. I do not trust any of the main parties to even deliver their manifesto, nevermind make positive change to the country. Here's why:
The comments above about Murdoch and the press are only part of it. The multinationals, the EU, America, the World Bank/IMF/other international robbers, the organised criminals, NGOs, the Stock Market, pressure groups, unions etc. etc. all vie down on the Government in a way that cannot be managed. Whatever party gets in, they will do the same thing because they just don't have enough power. At best they sit in the middle and try not to piss too many people off; at worst they buy into all these outside agencies/governments and write off what "the people" want completely.
So I am intending to vote for "none of the above - different political system" because that is what I believe. I know it won't be counted, I don't care. I agree that this tactical voting is all rather dishonest. Vote for what you believe in, not what you feel you should.
O
Ott^
Guest
miszt said:
What breakfast cereal packet did you read that on?
I'm not forgetting anything of the sort. I am unequivocally stating that we are all, individually and collectively, "to small to make a diffrence" (sic) to the people who actually run things.
I fully intend to.
I'm coming to the conclusion that you're not all that bright.
I can speak for nobody but myself, but I can't help thinking that to simply parrot the old "not voting = apathy" nonsense is to render yourself more part of the problem than part of the solution.
With dupes like you to spread their propaganda, its no wonder that WalMart have more power than any of our "elected representatives"...