[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]I would strongly urge everybody to vote. Whilst people may differ into the views as to the cause, or whether it is justified, democracy is being steadily eroded by a political class who live in their own little bubble and ignore the people they are supposed to represent.
In short when it comes to your vote use it or lose it.
I am disillusioned with the 3 main parties in common with many on here it seems. Despite the Eurosceptic noises the Tories make from time to time when it comes to the crunch they, like Labour and the Lib Dems, roll over to have their tummy tickled by the EU which now makes at least 50% of UK laws, by the admission of Europhiles, with the elected UK Parliament powerless to intervene even if it wanted to which it presently does not.
That leaves the smaller parties primarily Green, BNP and UKIP. The Greens are ideologically even more controlling than the present Government and again embrace the Big Government democratically unaccountable tentacles of the EU. The BNP are anti EU but a party that ideologically excludes people because of skin colour, even if on paper no longer applying, is an absolute no, no for me.
That leaves UKIP. Yes they are small and have their shortcomings but if you are unhappy with the status quo, ie policies dictated largely by the EU whatever rhetoric the big 3 leaders might employ, then they are a genuine outlet for a protest vote as they unambiguously want to leave the EU and are not taken in by the man made climate change propaganda which now dominates EU (and therefore by default) UK policy making.
More importantly though you use the vote that people have died to win which takes me back to where I came in....
[quote][cite]Posted By: D_F_T[/cite]In some countries it is compulsory to vote, you can go into the booth and spoil your paper but you must turn up to vote.[/quote] That may be the only way to get politicians to listen to young voters.
Currently we have the democratic right to not vote.
What a splendid debate, well argued and non-abusive - give yourselves a round of applause lifers!
For what it's worth, one comment I would like to make is that a vote for the BNP will be seen as a vote for their racist policies, rather than anything else they have to say. Whether you as a voter believe in that part of their manifesto or not.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]For what it's worth, one comment I would like to make is that a vote for the BNP will be seen as a vote for their racist policies, rather than anything else they have to say. Whether you as a voter believe in that part of their manifesto or not.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]For what it's worth, one comment I would like to make is that a vote for the BNP will be seen as a vote for their racist policies, rather than anything else they have to say. Whether you as a voter believe in that part of their manifesto or not.
Is that fair though?
Probably yes, as they rarely win votes due to their education policy or how they are going to reduce waste in the NHS.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]What a splendid debate, well argued and non-abusive - give yourselves a round of applause lifers!
For what it's worth, one comment I would like to make is that a vote for the BNP will be seen as a vote for their racist policies, rather than anything else they have to say. Whether you as a voter believe in that part of their manifesto or not.
The BNP are a racist party - everything else about them is detail.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]For what it's worth, one comment I would like to make is that a vote for the BNP will be seen as a vote for their racist policies, rather than anything else they have to say. Whether you as a voter believe in that part of their manifesto or not.
Is that fair though?
Probably yes, athey rarely win votes due to their education policy or how they are going to reduce waste in the NHSs .
And this is EXACTLY where those muppets who appeared on Question Time with Nick Griffin missed a trick that night. They should have used the time to deconstruct his political credibility by pressing him on such non- racial issues and therefore taking the opportunity to perhaps communicate this to intelligent (yet dissallusioned) voters who may be tempted to vote BNP.
Instead they decided to turn it into a debacle making him look like a panto villain with all of the booing and hissing.
The BNP are the NF with a new name I would be ashamed at any Charlton supporter, voting for the National Front, if you read between the lines of their policies the reason they claim the NHS and Education will have more money is that they will stop ethnic minorities from having free education and free health care, wake up and smell the scum BNP supporters!
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]I think they did a good job of de-constructing Griffin, but his racial views were always going to get the most media attention.
To be fair BFR you are probably bias as a Labour supporter? (Apologies if not) but for the rest of us who cant stand the current regime and are crying out for a decent opposition it was a missed opportunity and i think that many people (not me personally necesarily) may have just seen it as anyone in this country now who raises immigration/ islamic issues etc in a non- pc way is shot down and perhaps he may have even converted some disallusioned voters through this that night who feel that the main parties dont represent them.
All i mean is that if they had been savvy and they had said right give us your policies on crime, education, health, pensions etc instead of the tried and tested racism card (which anyone with half an iota of knowledge about the party will see exists) then they may have destroyed any credentials he may have had in the eyes of those people.
Instead it was just a circus and a wasted opportunity IMO.
Lib Dems for me or a protest vote for the Greens, haven't made my mind up yet. I'm a bit of an old fashioned leftie at heart but there's isn't really an old fashioned leftie party anymore, at least not that will be putting a candidate up in rural Wyre Forest. Just can't envisage a time I will ever vote Tory, especially with a Chrocodile's tears Thatcherite in charge like they have now. Fully exepct them to get in raound my way though.
To be honest though, I don't think I've ever felt so disaffected by it all. I;m paying less and less attention to current affairs these days, what's in the news and on the political agenda just doesn't speak to me most of the time. It's only the thought of the fight people have been through and are still going through to obtain democracy that keeps me voting - feel it's more a moral duty than particularly in my own interests.
To be honest though, I don't think I've ever felt so disaffected by it all. I;m paying less and less attention to current affairs these days, what's in the news and on the political agenda just doesn't speak to me most of the time. .
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]
Additionally I dont know why people moan about Cameron and co having gone to Eton etc.
Is there something wrong with being educated?
Did Tony Blair not attend Fettes school - known as The Eton of Scotland.
But the difference is that Cameron, Osborne & Co. will act in the selfish interests of their own kind -- those with inherited wealth and privilege. Blair wanted to improve the lot of the average person and the poor. And, largely, Labour has done so. Take a look at the state school premises in your neighbourhood and compare their condition to that of 1997 and before. Compare NHS waiting lists then and now; and pensioner incomes... I could go on.
Labour--- not if you call yourself English. Tory-- Probably will be biggest party, but people like me cant forget Thatcher--stealth tax(how Labour love that) selling off anything British (how Labour love that) sleeze(how labour love that)
Lib Dem-- may be worth a punt. Looks like a hung parliament and Vince Cable talks well on the economy so he might do well in a shared government.
Dont Vote--- sorry millions never get the chance--- millions died for the vote so please do vote.
The smaller partys----English Democrats --- Green etc--- why not?
Looks like a hung joby this time and after 25 years of Parties with a large majority maybe it would be a good thing to have a hung parliament ? Parties (tory Labour) with large majoritys follow their idiology first and forget about the people that put them there who they treat will TOTAL contempt
A hung parliament tory/lib may be the out come, although I'm not sure how that will work out when they have such different views. Would be interesting to see Vince Cable as the chancellor.
David Cameron as the PM, how embarressing, even worse than Boreus as the mayor.
The latest opinion polls suggest that a hung parliament is a real possibility after the next election. They also suggest that the public rather likes the idea. According to a recent survey, almost half of voters would like the next government to be required to work with one of the smaller parties to achieve its legislative agenda.
This is an indictment of Labour and the Conservatives. The public evidently does not relish the prospect of outright control for either of the two largest parties, even those who are prepared to vote for them. The finding is also an indictment of our first-past-the-post electoral system. A hung parliament is an outcome that electors cannot directly vote for, despite the fact that it is what many would prefer.
There is a powerful and ingrained prejudice among our political, financial and media elite against hung parliaments; an assumption that a lack of a single party with a commanding majority would be bad for the country. Yet it is by no means clear that such an outcome would be a disaster. It is often said that the financial markets will panic if no single party is returned with an overall majority, pushing up interest rates. The scare story is that the lack of a clear winner would result in political stasis and fiscal incontinence. This is a narrative the Conservatives have been energetically talking up in recent weeks in the hope that voters will be scared back into their camp.
Yet the idea that a hung parliament would lead to economic meltdown is a misleading piece of conventional wisdom and a confirmation of the fact that the financial markets' understanding of Westminster is often rather unsophisticated.
The markets are just as misled if they believe a hung parliament will mean political deadlock on the deficit. The Liberal Democrats have the most detailed proposals for reducing government spending of all the three main parties. The idea that Mr Clegg would wreck any attempts to tackle the deficit as the price of his party's support for a minority government is sheer nonsense.
And even if one believed that investors have a good grasp of the mechanics of British politics and are justified in arguing that fiscal stasis would result from a hung parliament, are financial markets not supposed to be forward looking? Would they not have already "priced in" their fears of what could follow such an election result, both in the interest rate charged on government bonds and the sterling price?
The potential benefits of a hung parliament have scarcely been mentioned in public debate. Yet these are real. A fiscal consolidation budget approved by more than one of the main parties could, paradoxically, enjoy greater public consent. A more consensual political process could result in better governance in a host of areas. One-party rule has hardly been an unalloyed blessing for Britain these past three decades.
There is no shortage of reasons to be concerned about Britain's economic future, from the sustained weakness of our economy, to the health of the banks, to, yes, the inevitable pain that will arise from reducing the deficit. But the prospect of a hung parliament should not be one of them.
We have a Government here in Canada with a very small majority, which is really at the mercy of the opposition who could bring an election on at any time. It works well, the (imo) irksome right wing leader we have is held to account by the opposition, who at the same time are too scared to call on an election in case they lose. It means the policies are moderate & any of the lunatic stuff is unlikely to get through.
A hung parliament or a small majority could be ideal for the UK. Moderation and accountability are the name of the game.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Graham R.[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite] Additionally I dont know why people moan about Cameron and co having gone to Eton etc. Is there something wrong with being educated? Did Tony Blair not attend Fettes school - known as The Eton of Scotland.[/quote]
But the difference is that Cameron, Osborne & Co. will act in the selfish interests of their own kind -- those with inherited wealth and privilege. Blair wanted to improve the lot of the average person and the poor. And, largely, Labour has done so. Take a look at the state school premises in your neighbourhood and compare their condition to that of 1997 and before. Compare NHS waiting lists then and now; and pensioner incomes... I could go on.[/quote]
This is the misconception that I feel gets overlooked. The majority of those taxes that paid for all these improvements came out of the pockets of the working man. Never, not even under previous Tory governments, have the rich had it so easy under New Labour. People easily forget that for 12 of the last 13 years the tax system in this country was biased against lower earners, and this is a tax system that has doubled in size. Proportionately you pay far more tax than the rich, and this as a consequence has lead to the widening gap between rich and poor. This idea that Labour is their for the working man is complete and utter tosh. They've done everything to bend over for big business and the whim of the markets. And yes that same Tony Blair who allied himself for so long with Lord Levy, another tax fiddler, worth hundreds of millions of pounds yet paid less than £5k income tax in 2007.
For me this two-faced attitude exists to con normal voters, and perpetuates a myth that New Labour is there for the working man.
[cite]Posted By: D_F_T[/cite]In some countries it is compulsory to vote, you can go into the booth and spoil your paper but you must turn up to vote.
I'd vote against that.
Policies aside for one moment, is anyone interested in Proportional Representation? Which party has that as one of its mainstream manifesto proposals?
The Lib Dems want it brought in, I think. I'm a big fan of Proportional Representation, in some form or other, but even I can recognise that the Lib Dems supporting it is fairly cynical on their part, because they know they'd win a much higher proportion of the seats. More representative, sure, but more, which is really all they care about.
Interesting that Tory supporters blame Blair for sending us into two wars. Didn't the Tories vote in favour of both of those wars, whereas the Lib Dems voted against going into Iraq.
It's disappointing that some people are lured in by the BNP's soundbites, but it's inevitable. This really isn't the time for any party to take the moral high ground, which gives such an obviously (in my eyes) bad party like the BNP free rein to get supporters. Still, it's your vote, and you do with it what you want.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]I think they did a good job of de-constructing Griffin, but his racial views were always going to get the most media attention.
True, but they also did a good job of completely ignoring the reasons why so many who do not consider themselves racist are considering voting BNP.
Griffin did all the damage to himself on that programme....every time he opened his mouth! That comment on the KKK was priceless. What a tool.
But I think the BNP still did well because we got the same old line from all the other parties i.e 'there is no problem with immigration and if you don't like the way the country is rapidly changing before your eyes then you are a racist'. This has just made people think 'sod you, now I will vote for them'.
Interesting how this seemed to pass almost un-noticed, but is highly significant. A hidden agenda that was in the manifesto that has arguably had more impact on the country than any other Labour policy, yet they did not want to tell people in case the poor unenlightened sods didn't like it:
Absolutely stunning, but it was only what many of us suspected anyway. Did they ask any of whether we wanted this? I wonder why?
I think a hung parliament would probably be the best outcome, for the reasons stated by Oakster. But some things clearly need to change. The parties need to actually start listening to the people. Perhaps if they did, then the people might become a little bit more engaged by politics.
Also, I'm perfectly happy for people who can't be bothered to vote not to do so - especially if the only kind of voting they normally do is for acts on the X Factor....
I do agree with many on here that it is a precious privilege bought by the blood and tears of our forefathers though.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]For what it's worth, one comment I would like to make is that a vote for the BNP will be seen as a vote for their racist policies, rather than anything else they have to say. Whether you as a voter believe in that part of their manifesto or not.
Is that fair though?
That is why I chose my words carefully - "will be seen as"... Correct or not, that is the interpretation the majority of people, and the media will put on it.
I vote for whoever is likely to do best for the area where I live. I am after all voting for my local representative in parliament, and not who gets to run the country. I think we should get two votes: one for local MP and one for who we want to run the country overall. They are not always the same party. Not sure who is standing in Dartford but voted Conservative last year in Gravesend because the Labour bloke was a prat!
Comments
I'd vote for you Len.
That may be the only way to get politicians to listen to young voters.
Currently we have the democratic right to not vote.
(Will be voting Tory btw.)
Can't say I follow politics too closely and none of it really makes any sense to me.
All I know is I don't like this country too much right now
For what it's worth, one comment I would like to make is that a vote for the BNP will be seen as a vote for their racist policies, rather than anything else they have to say. Whether you as a voter believe in that part of their manifesto or not.
Is that fair though?
Probably yes, as they rarely win votes due to their education policy or how they are going to reduce waste in the NHS.
The BNP are a racist party - everything else about them is detail.
I'm seriously considering Green.
I'd only ever vote Conservative if Ken Clarke was either Tory Party leader or shadow chancellor and Cameron/Osbourne are too light weight.
Labour deserve a hiding, and need to get some new blood in - the recent Byers/Hoon/Hewitt thing demonstartes their lack of political nous.
The Lib-Dems are too regional to be a threat and are making promises they know can't be kept.
That leaves the BNP (racist) UKIP (racist and nutters) and the Greens.
And this is EXACTLY where those muppets who appeared on Question Time with Nick Griffin missed a trick that night. They should have used the time to deconstruct his political credibility by pressing him on such non- racial issues and therefore taking the opportunity to perhaps communicate this to intelligent (yet dissallusioned) voters who may be tempted to vote BNP.
Instead they decided to turn it into a debacle making him look like a panto villain with all of the booing and hissing.
Absolute numpties.
agreed. And glad to see another Tory
To be fair BFR you are probably bias as a Labour supporter? (Apologies if not) but for the rest of us who cant stand the current regime and are crying out for a decent opposition it was a missed opportunity and i think that many people (not me personally necesarily) may have just seen it as anyone in this country now who raises immigration/ islamic issues etc in a non- pc way is shot down and perhaps he may have even converted some disallusioned voters through this that night who feel that the main parties dont represent them.
All i mean is that if they had been savvy and they had said right give us your policies on crime, education, health, pensions etc instead of the tried and tested racism card (which anyone with half an iota of knowledge about the party will see exists) then they may have destroyed any credentials he may have had in the eyes of those people.
Instead it was just a circus and a wasted opportunity IMO.
To be honest though, I don't think I've ever felt so disaffected by it all. I;m paying less and less attention to current affairs these days, what's in the news and on the political agenda just doesn't speak to me most of the time. It's only the thought of the fight people have been through and are still going through to obtain democracy that keeps me voting - feel it's more a moral duty than particularly in my own interests.
Couldnt agree more mate
But the difference is that Cameron, Osborne & Co. will act in the selfish interests of their own kind -- those with inherited wealth and privilege. Blair wanted to improve the lot of the average person and the poor. And, largely, Labour has done so. Take a look at the state school premises in your neighbourhood and compare their condition to that of 1997 and before. Compare NHS waiting lists then and now; and pensioner incomes... I could go on.
What is the point in voting for anyone other than Labour or Conservative?
Labour--- not if you call yourself English.
Tory-- Probably will be biggest party, but people like me cant forget Thatcher--stealth tax(how Labour love that) selling off anything British (how Labour love that) sleeze(how labour love that)
Lib Dem-- may be worth a punt. Looks like a hung parliament and Vince Cable talks well on the economy so he might do well in a shared government.
Dont Vote--- sorry millions never get the chance--- millions died for the vote so please do vote.
The smaller partys----English Democrats --- Green etc--- why not?
Looks like a hung joby this time and after 25 years of Parties with a large majority maybe it would be a good thing to have a hung parliament ? Parties (tory Labour) with large majoritys follow their idiology first and forget about the people that put them there who they treat will TOTAL contempt
David Cameron as the PM, how embarressing, even worse than Boreus as the mayor.
The latest opinion polls suggest that a hung parliament is a real possibility after the next election. They also suggest that the public rather likes the idea. According to a recent survey, almost half of voters would like the next government to be required to work with one of the smaller parties to achieve its legislative agenda.
This is an indictment of Labour and the Conservatives. The public evidently does not relish the prospect of outright control for either of the two largest parties, even those who are prepared to vote for them. The finding is also an indictment of our first-past-the-post electoral system. A hung parliament is an outcome that electors cannot directly vote for, despite the fact that it is what many would prefer.
There is a powerful and ingrained prejudice among our political, financial and media elite against hung parliaments; an assumption that a lack of a single party with a commanding majority would be bad for the country. Yet it is by no means clear that such an outcome would be a disaster. It is often said that the financial markets will panic if no single party is returned with an overall majority, pushing up interest rates. The scare story is that the lack of a clear winner would result in political stasis and fiscal incontinence. This is a narrative the Conservatives have been energetically talking up in recent weeks in the hope that voters will be scared back into their camp.
Yet the idea that a hung parliament would lead to economic meltdown is a misleading piece of conventional wisdom and a confirmation of the fact that the financial markets' understanding of Westminster is often rather unsophisticated.
The markets are just as misled if they believe a hung parliament will mean political deadlock on the deficit. The Liberal Democrats have the most detailed proposals for reducing government spending of all the three main parties. The idea that Mr Clegg would wreck any attempts to tackle the deficit as the price of his party's support for a minority government is sheer nonsense.
And even if one believed that investors have a good grasp of the mechanics of British politics and are justified in arguing that fiscal stasis would result from a hung parliament, are financial markets not supposed to be forward looking? Would they not have already "priced in" their fears of what could follow such an election result, both in the interest rate charged on government bonds and the sterling price?
The potential benefits of a hung parliament have scarcely been mentioned in public debate. Yet these are real. A fiscal consolidation budget approved by more than one of the main parties could, paradoxically, enjoy greater public consent. A more consensual political process could result in better governance in a host of areas. One-party rule has hardly been an unalloyed blessing for Britain these past three decades.
There is no shortage of reasons to be concerned about Britain's economic future, from the sustained weakness of our economy, to the health of the banks, to, yes, the inevitable pain that will arise from reducing the deficit. But the prospect of a hung parliament should not be one of them.
A hung parliament or a small majority could be ideal for the UK. Moderation and accountability are the name of the game.
Additionally I dont know why people moan about Cameron and co having gone to Eton etc.
Is there something wrong with being educated?
Did Tony Blair not attend Fettes school - known as The Eton of Scotland.[/quote]
But the difference is that Cameron, Osborne & Co. will act in the selfish interests of their own kind -- those with inherited wealth and privilege. Blair wanted to improve the lot of the average person and the poor. And, largely, Labour has done so. Take a look at the state school premises in your neighbourhood and compare their condition to that of 1997 and before. Compare NHS waiting lists then and now; and pensioner incomes... I could go on.[/quote]
This is the misconception that I feel gets overlooked. The majority of those taxes that paid for all these improvements came out of the pockets of the working man. Never, not even under previous Tory governments, have the rich had it so easy under New Labour. People easily forget that for 12 of the last 13 years the tax system in this country was biased against lower earners, and this is a tax system that has doubled in size. Proportionately you pay far more tax than the rich, and this as a consequence has lead to the widening gap between rich and poor. This idea that Labour is their for the working man is complete and utter tosh. They've done everything to bend over for big business and the whim of the markets. And yes that same Tony Blair who allied himself for so long with Lord Levy, another tax fiddler, worth hundreds of millions of pounds yet paid less than £5k income tax in 2007.
For me this two-faced attitude exists to con normal voters, and perpetuates a myth that New Labour is there for the working man.
The Lib Dems want it brought in, I think. I'm a big fan of Proportional Representation, in some form or other, but even I can recognise that the Lib Dems supporting it is fairly cynical on their part, because they know they'd win a much higher proportion of the seats. More representative, sure, but more, which is really all they care about.
Interesting that Tory supporters blame Blair for sending us into two wars. Didn't the Tories vote in favour of both of those wars, whereas the Lib Dems voted against going into Iraq.
It's disappointing that some people are lured in by the BNP's soundbites, but it's inevitable. This really isn't the time for any party to take the moral high ground, which gives such an obviously (in my eyes) bad party like the BNP free rein to get supporters. Still, it's your vote, and you do with it what you want.
I don't think people should be forced to vote.
undecided on who to vote for, but it will not be labour, lib dems (labour-lite) or greenies (labour-heavy).
In a safe Conservative seat, i am more likely to make a protest vote than use it on a clear winner.
True, but they also did a good job of completely ignoring the reasons why so many who do not consider themselves racist are considering voting BNP.
But I think the BNP still did well because we got the same old line from all the other parties i.e 'there is no problem with immigration and if you don't like the way the country is rapidly changing before your eyes then you are a racist'. This has just made people think 'sod you, now I will vote for them'.
Interesting how this seemed to pass almost un-noticed, but is highly significant. A hidden agenda that was in the manifesto that has arguably had more impact on the country than any other Labour policy, yet they did not want to tell people in case the poor unenlightened sods didn't like it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
Absolutely stunning, but it was only what many of us suspected anyway. Did they ask any of whether we wanted this? I wonder why?
I think a hung parliament would probably be the best outcome, for the reasons stated by Oakster. But some things clearly need to change. The parties need to actually start listening to the people. Perhaps if they did, then the people might become a little bit more engaged by politics.
Also, I'm perfectly happy for people who can't be bothered to vote not to do so - especially if the only kind of voting they normally do is for acts on the X Factor....
I do agree with many on here that it is a precious privilege bought by the blood and tears of our forefathers though.
That is why I chose my words carefully - "will be seen as"... Correct or not, that is the interpretation the majority of people, and the media will put on it.