http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8603591.stm

BBC wrote:Prime Minister Gordon Brown has confirmed that the UK general election will be held on 6 May.

Who are you going to vote for? Why? Do you still support Browns policies, or do you think Cameron would make a better leader?
Perhaps you prefer a smaller, independent party? Do you think there will be a hung parliament?

For our international Dakkites, who do you prefer? Why?

Discuss ad nauseam.

If I bother to vote, it will be for a smaller party.

I can't vote for Brown, the guy is a cretin, and I can't vote for the Tories, the whole bunch of them are weasels.

I would actually like to see a hung parliament, to reign in the excesses of whichever party has the majority.

So in a general election, is this an election to send high ranking military officers off to Iraq in order to fight America's war?

WarOne wrote:So in a general election, is this an election to send high ranking military officers off to Iraq in order to fight America's war?

In the same that a general anaesthetic is to be used only on high ranking military officers.

The conservatives have been saying labour stole their polices for the last fourteen years,
and I believe them. Well they haven't worked.

So voting conservative is more of the same, and voting labour is also more of the same.

Proberly vote independant, if their is one.

Voting conservative. They are slightly right of centre. As am i, and as are most people with a brain that was not tampered with mormon style by their parents. Who doesnt agree with being tougher on crime, being sensible with immigration, being fiscally responsible? The pinko labour party and the lib dems wont be happy until our army wear pink berets and we all wear traditional african dress. The BNP are too far right and are crazy, and i dislike them as much as i hate hand wringing liberals and hippys, so better the devil you know. Seems simple to me.

Voting Conservative. We need Labour out. Yesterday.

For me it comes down to who will best deal with the MASSIVE deficiet we are now sitting in. I've seen partial plans from both the major parties but nothing precise. It depends how much these plans affect me and family and how well layed out these plans are to stimulate growth of UK business and growth of the £ again.

At this moment I don't have anough information to help me make a decision.

I am shrugging and loathing all of them.

I will be living in the US in a few months, if all is well.

Then it's me n the missus in a fortified bunker/self sufficient farm, armed to the teeth - like 'The Good Life' meets 'Zombieland'...

loki old fart wrote:

Proberly vote independant, if their is one.

I hear Perot is always available. See? Here is his 2012 campaign poster:

I live in Ealing Southall -- here are the results at last election:

48.8%
Piara Khabra (Labour): 22937 votes (+1.3%).

24.4%
Nigel Bakhai (Liberal Democrat): 11497 votes (+14.4%).

21.6%
Mark Nicholson (Conservative): 10147 votes (+3.3%).

4.6%
Sarah Edwards (Green Party): 2175 votes (+0.1%).

I don't want to vote Labour or Conservative, as I think they are both as bad as each other. I could vote Liberal, and they might have a chance at getting in. I could vote Green as a protest vote.

Overall I think the country needs to tackle the deficit, improve education and training for jobs, and build up good infrastructure so that the economy grows and employs more people in the future. That can be done by a combination of reduced social provision and increased taxes. The pain has to be shared out as evenly as possible. It won't get done by "efficiency savings".

It needs to be done before the demographic timebomb explodes, but no party in the past 50 years has dared to grasp the nettle.

I would also be pleased to see tax reform. The current system is ridiculously complicated.

I struggle to see how anyone who isn't:
A: Insane
B: Of such low IQ they should be unable to spell 'A'
C: A labor parliamentarian or aperatchick.

able to vote for the Labor party.

They've stuffed your country, stuffed the economy, set in motion the rise of the far right BNP through dissilusionment, and made a nanny state of such epic proportions that criminals are put ahead of people defending themselves or their property.

The conservatives are right of centre but not nuts.
The lib dems are... well I don't know because it seems the only people who know waht the lib dems are for are the lib dems....

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I struggle to see how anyone who isn't:
A: Insane
B: Of such low IQ they should be unable to spell 'A'
C: A labor parliamentarian or aperatchick.

able to vote for the Labor party.

They've stuffed your country, stuffed the economy, set in motion the rise of the far right BNP through dissilusionment, and made a nanny state of such epic proportions that criminals are put ahead of people defending themselves or their property.

The conservatives are right of centre but not nuts.
The lib dems are... well I don't know because it seems the only people who know waht the lib dems are for are the lib dems....

QFT.

Its not that they have a low IQ, its that their parents train them this way. I live in Middlesbrough, and we have a "Labour Taliban" that will vote for them until they die. No matter what they do. Their Dads tell them about Thatcher crushing the miners every day and they grow up to support Labour regardless of current events. Once the neural fibres harden there is no turning back. If you can brainwash a kid to volutarily blow himself up, you can get him to vote for your party of choice with consumate ease.

The left and their incessant politcal correctness has caused all of this. I recall Micheal Howard saying about 6 years ago that "if you force political correctness onto people, then you force them into the arms of the right" and now look where we are, more lower and working class people are going to vote BNP than ever before, because they (often wrongly) presume that Johnny Foreigner is getting everything for free.

Eh, the people I know who are going to be voting Labour are doing so because they think the Torys are worse, and no one else has a chance. (Although if anyone but the Torys wins my area, I'll be ).

Personly, I'm torn between Lib-Dem and whichever of the smaller parties (Green/UKIP/CD/Indys) decides to put up a candidate.

I defenatly won't be voting Labour/Tory/BMP/MRLP.

I'll be voting Green if we get a candidate here. Otherwise I'll be spoiling my ballot paper.

I was considering voting tory up until a few weeks ago when i saw the first campaign posters which, instead of publicizing conservative policies, attack Labour instead. I wasn't overly surprised by this but i was reminded of how annoying it is to be treated like a fething idiot especially when it's my tax money that's being used to do it. I know Labour have fethed up the country over the last few years, the Conservatives have not provided a decent opposition though and spending my tax money to turn the General Election into some kind of schoolyard-mud-slinging competition just stiffens my resolve to stick a big middle finger up at the ruling elite.

/rant

mattyrm wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I struggle to see how anyone who isn't:
A: Insane
B: Of such low IQ they should be unable to spell 'A'
C: A labor parliamentarian or aperatchick.

able to vote for the Labor party.

They've stuffed your country, stuffed the economy, set in motion the rise of the far right BNP through dissilusionment, and made a nanny state of such epic proportions that criminals are put ahead of people defending themselves or their property.

The conservatives are right of centre but not nuts.
The lib dems are... well I don't know because it seems the only people who know waht the lib dems are for are the lib dems....

QFT.

Its not that they have a low IQ, its that their parents train them this way. I live in Middlesbrough, and we have a "Labour Taliban" that will vote for them until they die. No matter what they do. Their Dads tell them about Thatcher crushing the miners every day and they grow up to support Labour regardless of current events. Once the neural fibres harden there is no turning back. If you can brainwash a kid to volutarily blow himself up, you can get him to vote for your party of choice with consumate ease.

The left and their incessant politcal correctness has caused all of this. I recall Micheal Howard saying about 6 years ago that "if you force political correctness onto people, then you force them into the arms of the right" and now look where we are, more lower and working class people are going to vote BNP than ever before, because they (often wrongly) presume that Johnny Foreigner is getting everything for free.

You guys probably aren't old enough to remember Thatch, the Tory sponsored recession of the late 80s and the brown envelopes scandal. You also may not be aware of the wave of privatisations that have since gone badly wrong, e.g. the water companies, BA and British Rail.

I can, and it is a big part of my distrust for the Tories now, also I have come to the conclusion that Cameron and some of his shadow cabinet are serious lightweights.

That's not to say I hold a torch for Labour as I also remember the Winter of Discontent and I can see that kind of situation creeping up on us again.

mattyrm wrote:

Its not that they have a low IQ, its that their parents train them this way. I live in Middlesbrough, and we have a "Labour Taliban" that will vote for them until they die. No matter what they do. Their Dads tell them about Thatcher crushing the miners every day and they grow up to support Labour regardless of current events. Once the neural fibres harden there is no turning back. If you can brainwash a kid to volutarily blow himself up, you can get him to vote for your party of choice with consumate ease.

The left and their incessant politcal correctness has caused all of this. I recall Micheal Howard saying about 6 years ago that "if you force political correctness onto people, then you force them into the arms of the right" and now look where we are, more lower and working class people are going to vote BNP than ever before, because they (often wrongly) presume that Johnny Foreigner is getting everything for free.

Whereas I will not be voting, because there is no left wing party to vote for...

And if you're going to start listening to Michael Howerd... Well young man, there ain't much hope for you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189983/Former-Tory-leader-Michael-Howard-claimed-17-000-gardening-services.html
He also:
*Introduced the Poll Tax.
*Privatised the National Water boards.
*Was the Employment Secretary during the highest unemployment figures since records began.
*Implemented Section 28 forbidding the discussion of homosexuality in school sex education.
*Despite pledges to halt immigration, is the son of a Romanian economic migrant...

Labour and Conservative? Aren't they the same party? I mean since they have the same policies and ideologies....

^^
Careful, you'll ruin the Sun's sales figures with that kind of talk

I am having trouble with my vote, I don't know what to do. In my constituency there are five parties running, they are all giving me a head ache over who to vote for.

I could vote Tory. As I think britain is broken. On every street corner is a knife wielding hoodie who wants to kill me, so I live in constant fear that I am about to get gangraped every time I step outside my home. I wish with all my heart that this nightmare would end and we could go back to the simple old mass race riots and football hooliganism of the conservative eighties, such a safer time to live. I could vote conservative as it sickens me how our government have sent our economy to hell what with this apocalyptic send up of privatisation and capitalism which is totally new and has absolutely nothing to do with anything the last conservative government did. And those left wingers really grind my gears, nothing does it more than the great big left wing monster that is the labour party, it nauseates me how left they are.

I could vote the green party. As I wish to use a climate change pressure group as protest vote against all other parties un-adequacy. In no way do I think the government would misinterpret a success this election by the green party solely as a protest against their policies on climate change. But if they did it wouldn't be such a bad thing, since being a world leader in cutting down energy usage is obviously not good enough and I would happily welcome another ton of taxes on fuel.

I could vote Labour. As I don't think this country has been to enough wars in the past thirteen years and the best thing for our countries defence right now is sending our military to their deaths in Afghanistan, which of course is the very epicentre of all terrorist activity on earth and once the war is won all remaining terrorists will simply surrender. But in any case, freeing Afghanistan from their oppressive government and replacing it with with a completely un-corrupt government and then fighting for it's survival is almost a better achievement than defeating terrorism anyway.

I could vote BNP. As I'm too tired of all those foreigners coming into our country and taking all our unskilled, low paid work. It makes me sick how a white British child can grow up wanting to stuff pies in a factory for a living only to find the job he has dreamed about all his life is taken by some polish lad who is willing to work seventy hours a week for minimum wage; who shamelessly took advantage of EU laws which allow him to work in another EU country, I mean it's not like a substantial number of britons do the same in other EU countries, is it?

I could vote Liberal. As I think a political party with the presence of a dead lama in it's own house would kick our country's image up a notch once in control of our government.


I however will certainly not be spoiling my vote and writing "you're all a bunch of useless *****s" on it in bold capitals before ruing the five minutes I've just wasted in the polling station.

...and I definitely wont be being sarcastic in any conversation about this brilliant demonstration of our democratic government that is the 2010 general election.

Its all a bit grim to be sure.. but whats the alternative i must ask? Dont vote? Vote for a nutter? I dont see how any of thats gonna help either..

I support Matt and Albatross. Wait, feth that! You could just push for a stronger monarchy, or if you really wanna be controversial, revive the Jacobite movement.

I agree with mattyrm, if the Lib dems or Green party get the keys to No. 10 then the Birtish Armed forces will be dwarfed by Lichtenstein's massive paramilitary juggernaut.

However I'm voting Tories. I did for Norwich North by-election, despite the fact that it was used as a public backlash at Labour and that 60% of the Constituants didn't bother voting.

I find the BNP comical, just because Nick Griffin couldn't hold a debate with a mute, let alone the nations greatest gay-non-lesbian Germaine Greer,and a few ex circus chimps on 'QuestionTime'. That was a debacle. BUT, it did raise the popularity for BNP and the English Defense League.

I think Labour's shortfalls have allowed 'Dangerous' thinking in the minds of young,jobless white/black/asian lads who will flock to their respective ethinc tribes. Hate will spill out eventually. Lets hope the Tories can curb that and get GREAT BRITAIN back on track.

Bash

Hey Jeb id be all up for abolishing parliament as long as the queen is alive, but when the dear old lady dies, and her gibbering jug eared son rises to rule.. ill be less happy.

mattyrm wrote:Hey Jeb id be all up for abolishing parliament as long as the queen is alive, but when the dear old lady dies, and her gibbering jug eared son rises to rule.. ill be less happy.

Ah yes, the old: I'm happy living under absolute monarchy, as long as I like the person in charge.

I would vote for anyone who can drive the Pound down lower to equality with the Dollar so Forgeworld stuff is cheaper. But I am a selfish donkey-cave that way.

I vote for a new kind of ruler...

I'll be hoping My friends In England stay left of center. It may seem like you issues are with your party but it's more to do with wars and this resession, than any policy. Sorry about thoes btw. Comming down on people from other countries, or talking debt reduction, sounds good, but ask youself, What ARE thier plans to fix debt. Will it involve things like raising taxes, cutting your healthcare, for firing Government workers.

I took a "who should you vote for in the UK" test on the internet. I was all over the place, and I still can't tell you the difference between Labors, Liberals, Tories, and Independents (the Greens and Nationalists are easier to recognise, though).

It's going to have to involve raising taxes, and cutting some aspects of government spending.

Social security and pensions are first in the firing line because they are the biggest single line items. Then comes health and education.

No-one wants to touch health and education because they are practically sacred and actually make a positive contribution to maintaining and improving the whole country and economy. (Sick, thick people don't make good workers.)

Once you get to areas like infrastructure, the military and diplomatic service, the sums being spent are pretty small so it's a lot harder to find the necessary savings.

Basically social provision is going to have to be cut back. Taxes are going to have to be raised because the pain must be shared out and because it's well off people (like me, to be honest) who have got the money. There will be some across the board tax rises too, because a penny on basic income tax can raise more than 10p on the rich.

No government wants to tackle these issues because it is going to be unpopular with everyone. Without tackling them, though, the UK will eventually run itself into the ground because of the deficit.

It's OK to run a deficit if the money is invested in useful infrastructure, education and research, that kind of thing. You can grow your ecnomy and reduce the deficit. But the UK has for decades been investing too much of its deficit in social welfare.

Yeah whatwhat i was being sarcastic, but id not expect you to get that because you remind me of my mother in law.

Yeah and I was making an askew comment on said sarcasm. But then you wouldn't take that very well considering I remind you of a woman who lives in constant disappointment.

For me, the problem with voting in the UK is that you are not only voting for a political party but also a person to run your local area (i.e. your MP). Now let's say you wanted to vote Conservative, but your Conservative candidate is a half wit toff (a not uncommon problem), would you really vote for him to manage local affairs just to see the political party you favour win the election?

For this reason, I've always voted by candidate not political party which has resulted in two Lib Dem votes so far, even though I don't particularly think they should run the country.

whatwhat wrote:But then you wouldn't take that very well considering I remind you of a woman who lives in constant disappointment.

You have to admit, that was sharp as a dagger juggling porcupine in a razorblade thong...

Flashman wrote:For me, the problem with voting in the UK is that you are not only voting for a political party but also a person to run your local area (i.e. your MP). Now let's say you wanted to vote Conservative, but your Conservative candidate is a half wit toff (a not uncommon problem), would you really vote for him to manage local affairs just to see the political party you favour win the election?

For this reason, I've always voted by candidate not political party which has resulted in two Lib Dem votes so far, even though I don't particularly think they should run the country.

What about local government?

I'm torn. While spoiling my ballot paper is usually my preferred method, I'm wondering if a hung parliament is the most desired result, and if so perhaps I should vote strategically.

Voting is completely pointless. It's all run by the Shadow men in the Background anyway. </Tinfoilhat>

Personally, I don't want to vote Labour. They had their chance and blew it, and there has been a lot of shady dealing over the years. F1 cars being an exception to smoking ads, cash for honours scandal, and lately MPs for hire.

However I don't know if the Conservatives are any better. I know they destroyed the railways and have been associated with sleaze before, so I'm helluva confused.

Better get reading manifestos methinks...

KillKrazy wrote:It's OK to run a deficit if the money is invested in useful infrastructure, education and research, that kind of thing. You can grow your ecnomy and reduce the deficit. But the UK has for decades been investing too much of its deficit in social welfare.

KK absolutely hits the nail on the head here. In addition, Labour's response to employment problems over the past few years appears to have been to create more and more Public Sector jobs. We can't have everyone working for the Gov't!
No-one is pretending that the Tories' plan to cut waste and bureaucracy will solve all of our problems - but it's a good place to start, and is something that needs to be addressed.

Creating public sector jobs is a version of the Keynesian idea of keeping money flowing through the economy which vitalizes it by the Multiplier effect.

In Keynes's original idea, the govt would pay men to bury jars full of £5 notes and pay other men to dig them up.

This was an allegory for the idea that the govt. can play a role in keeping people in work during a recession and thereby prevent the whole economy from entering a spiral of declining output. This plan seems to have worked in the current recession.

However it was never intended for a replacement for proper private sector jobs.

The sad truth is that for 30 years the UK private sector has failed to generate the number and value of jobs needed to keep the population employed.

Gwar! wrote:Voting is completely pointless. It's all run by the Shadow men in the Background anyway. </Tinfoilhat>

But aren't you Jewish???

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Voting is completely pointless. It's all run by the Shadow men in the Background anyway. </Tinfoilhat>

But aren't you Jewish???

Shhhhhhhhh! They are watching!!!!!

Kilkrazy wrote:

Flashman wrote:For me, the problem with voting in the UK is that you are not only voting for a political party but also a person to run your local area (i.e. your MP). Now let's say you wanted to vote Conservative, but your Conservative candidate is a half wit toff (a not uncommon problem), would you really vote for him to manage local affairs just to see the political party you favour win the election?

For this reason, I've always voted by candidate not political party which has resulted in two Lib Dem votes so far, even though I don't particularly think they should run the country.

What about local government?

Hah! I work for local government and have never seen a bigger waste of space than councillors. Planning is a good example.

1. Controversial planning application is made by developer.
2. It is line with planning policy, so planning officers advise approval.
3. Councillors fearful of losing their seat, ignore officer advice and turn down the application.
4. Developer goes to appeal and gets planning permission anyway.
5. Council pays developer's legal costs.
6. Councillors keep seat and now have to cut costs because of 5.
7. Planning officers lose their jobs.

I never vote in local elections.

I've learnt more about my own government in the last 45 mins reading this blog than I have ever in my 25 years on this planet. I don't know how all of you can have full/part-time jobs/careers and still have a collective tome of knowledge on par with 'Encylopedia Brittanica'. I feel...well....ignorant..for not REALLY giving a crap about my country's government aslong as roads didn't crumble (which they are)and I got my free 6 month holiday to bargain resorts such as Basrah,Al Amarah and Helmand province. I'm also not massively intelligent as I am more than happy to throw myself out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft.

What I'm trying to say is...thankyou...in a non kiss arse way

Bash

My own personal caveat to this debate - and it is a drum I have been banging lo these past few months, is that there seems to be an awful lot of people who are of the opinion that a hung parliament will be a 'good' thing for the UK. I cannot disagree with this more; coalition governments have always been weak and ineffectual in UK politics. This will not change at the next election and is a bad thing for a country just coming out of a serious recession. We need firm government, whether that is a Labour or Tory one.

Hmm the choices are corrupt sleezebags, corrupt sleezebags, or slightly less corrupt sleezebags who want to increase capital gains tax to a level where I'd be forced to go non-dom and live in Switzerland to continue making a living the way I do. Hung parliament will weaken the pound and not allow anyone to take action on the defecit. Choices choices.

I agree with Lego.

To quote everyone's favourite outlaw journalist (Spider Jerusalem) "It look's like the next election will simply be to decide the face of the guy who's fething us next".

I think the next government would be wise to hold a referendum on the way we vote in this country, specifically whether we should switch to a proportional representation system. Sadly, the politicians seem to be more interested in preserving their own status (see the recent expenses scandal and the all-round absolution they gave themselves) rather than making the country work properly and would dismiss the idea out of hand.

J.Black wrote:I agree with Lego.

To quote everyone's favourite outlaw journalist (Spider Jerusalem) "It look's like the next election will simply be to decide the face of the guy who's fething us next".

I think the next government would be wise to hold a referendum on the way we vote in this country, specifically whether we should switch to a proportional representation system. Sadly, the politicians seem to be more interested in preserving their own status (see the recent expenses scandal and the all-round absolution they gave themselves) rather than making the country work properly and would dismiss the idea out of hand.

Referendums? The UK Government hates them. They would rather let the Liberals in than allow a referendum!

Dont forget, you can see how bad your MP clashes with your views at :
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/

Exactly. The notion that we should actually have a say in what happens in our own fething country is anathema to them. This is why they've spent the last 20 years inbreeding their politics to make them all but indistinguishable: Then they wonder why people vote for extremist parties! Morons.

It truely doesn't matter who you vote for, the main 2 parties are both conservative (new Labour my arse) and the Lib dems will never get in.

I will be heading to the polling office to write words that rhyme with hunts all over my card as per usual.

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition......."

It's sad isn't it?

No-one here is being apathetic, and we all want to see some sort of change in how the country is run. However, it's all been taken out of our hands to the point where i feel like I'm living in a one party state :(

It's very sad my friend.

We need a new Cromwell, but this time slaughter the corrupt scum and start again.

Not all of them are corrupt, some of them are actually trying to do something positve, but the apathetic ones are as guilty as anyone.

J.Black wrote:
I think the next government would be wise to hold a referendum on the way we vote in this country, specifically whether we should switch to a proportional representation system.

Woah there- you've raised some good points, but IMO this would be a major mistake. Proportional representation was used by Germany's Weimar Republic in the late 20's and early 30's. It proved a beautiful idea, but wholly ineffectual in passing laws, as there was never a majority satisfied with a bill. This meant that Germany's economy, already suffering under the Treaty of Versaille, struggled even more (read: economic recession). This paved the way for the rise of Nazism, as they offered strong leadership, and an effective economic plan (thats where the autobahns come from). Their anti-semitism was overlooked by a grateful populace.

A warning from history- why I think that proportional representation would be a mistake.

CadianXV wrote:A warning from history- why I think that proportional representation would be a mistake.

Ireland has used PR for many, many years.

I don't see any Nazis here.

Fair point- those two words just set off alarm bells in my head.

The Liberal party in the UK has long been a champion of various forms of proportional representation, mainly because they would see an increase in the amount of Liberal seats (due to the way their support is split across constituencies, rather than concentrated majorities). Labour also incline towards PR, but to a much lesser degree. Only Conservatives really oppose PR, again, because the current first past the post system favours them more as they can win a large number of seats within Tory safe constituencies yet still not garner a majority of total votes cast.

Proportional representation is not bad, per se, but nearly always leads to coalition government. This isnt so bad when the political system has adapted to work within those constraints - see the Scottish and Welsh assemblies for examples - but in terms of UK politics, our system precludes the effectiveness of coalition; we have an adversarial system and have been the same for centuries. It would take a long period of adaptation and change for the current parties to get used to working together rather than in direct competition.

filbert wrote:The Liberal party in the UK has long been a champion of various forms of proportional representation, mainly because they would see an increase in the amount of Liberal seats (due to the way their support is split across constituencies, rather than concentrated majorities). Labour also incline towards PR, but to a much lesser degree. Only Conservatives really oppose PR, again, because the current first past the post system favours them more as they can win a large number of seats within Tory safe constituencies yet still not garner a majority of total votes cast.

Proportional representation is not bad, per se, but nearly always leads to coalition government. This isnt so bad when the political system has adapted to work within those constraints - see the Scottish and Welsh assemblies for examples - but in terms of UK politics, our system precludes the effectiveness of coalition; we have an adversarial system and have been the same for centuries. It would take a long period of adaptation and change for the current parties to get used to working together rather than in direct competition.

Good points.

I would much rather see some fundamental change in the way UK politics works rather than watch the country slowly fall into extremism (see massively increased voting for far right/left parties in recent years). Currently, out politicians do not work together to improve the country; they try to force their views to the top of the pile via. character assassination, sleaze allegations, name calling, really any method they can think of that makes them look good and the other party look bad. This is not helpful in the long run. The parties in opposition are supposed to criticize the Government based on factual reality; even when the current Government deals in lies and spin and would quite probably have fallen apart under the weight of it's own bs, the opposition still can't stop mud-slinging, massaging figures and acting like children in a fething playground.

PR is a way of showing them that they have to start being nice to each other otherwise absolutely nothing will ever be acheived. I agree that it'll take them a long time to adapt but i think that this slow change is far preferable to the rancid state of affairs that we have now.

@CadianXV: Don't worry There were a lot of other contributing factors going on in and around Germany at that point in history; a number of countries have been safely using PR for a good long while now! Heck, if the Irish can manage it, I'm sure we can give it a good go

Flashman wrote:Hah! I work for local government and have never seen a bigger waste of space than councillors. Planning is a good example.

1. Controversial planning application is made by developer.
2. It is line with planning policy, so planning officers advise approval.
3. Councillors fearful of losing their seat, ignore officer advice and turn down the application.
4. Developer goes to appeal and gets planning permission anyway.
5. Council pays developer's legal costs.
6. Councillors keep seat and now have to cut costs because of 5.
7. Planning officers lose their jobs.

I never vote in local elections.

local councilors are useless, therefore I don't vote in local elections. Makes sense. I suppose the fact local councils are able to get away with said seven points has nothing to do with the fact nobody takes their local council vote seriously?

filbert wrote:My own personal caveat to this debate - and it is a drum I have been banging lo these past few months, is that there seems to be an awful lot of people who are of the opinion that a hung parliament will be a 'good' thing for the UK. I cannot disagree with this more; coalition governments have always been weak and ineffectual in UK politics. This will not change at the next election and is a bad thing for a country just coming out of a serious recession. We need firm government, whether that is a Labour or Tory one.

Coalition governments got us through two world wars.

The problem with strong majority rule is they can as easily ram through bad bills as good ones.

One of our current problems is too many laws being passed too quickly to make effective legislation.

Plenty of other European countries manage with coalitions.

Kilkrazy wrote:

filbert wrote:My own personal caveat to this debate - and it is a drum I have been banging lo these past few months, is that there seems to be an awful lot of people who are of the opinion that a hung parliament will be a 'good' thing for the UK. I cannot disagree with this more; coalition governments have always been weak and ineffectual in UK politics. This will not change at the next election and is a bad thing for a country just coming out of a serious recession. We need firm government, whether that is a Labour or Tory one.

Coalition governments got us through two world wars.

The problem with strong majority rule is they can as easily ram through bad bills as good ones.

One of our current problems is too many laws being passed too quickly to make effective legislation.

Plenty of other European countries manage with coalitions.

To be fair KK, a World War is quite a distraction from the minutiae of government and precludes squabbling over domestic issues.

I don't disagree that coalition governments can work; I just don't think it will work within our system as it stands and certainly not without a sea change in the nature of UK politics. As for strong majorities pushing through crap bills, well that's always been a problem and it is one of the reasons we have a bi-camaral system, to provide checks and balances. It is also why we need effective oppostion.

I think we are in an economic situation now which is analagous to the world war in the sense that it seriously threatens the stability and prosperity of the nation.

Getting out of it will require pain. The pain needs to be shared around fairly, so that everyone will agree to it. A coalition government gets a bigger chunk of the population on board.

Blair and Brown did more damage to the Uk and are greater long term threats to our continued surivial than Hitler and Napoleon.

We had the Channel to keep the latter out, Blair was a cancer in the system.

Concerning my 'continued survival,' speak for yourself gentile.

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

Apparently the rest of the Uk has 3.7 times more vote power than me

Not really surprising to be honest, I'd guess the majority of us live in strongholds. As it happens I'm quite happy with the candidate which is a certainty to get in here, as the old one is hanging up his boots. He's a fairly interesting character who opposes a lot of his parties own views. Supposedly Brad Pitt is also making a film about him aswell, which is interesting, with Orlando Bloom playing him, not so interesting.

I refuse to vote this year for one reason.

I don't think any of the parties can actually lead this country.

When the tories were in power, my family (who were hard working lower class folk) were practically destitute. Along came Mr Blair and my family are living comfortable lives until he stepped down and that useless cretin Brown stepped in.
The tories are upper class untrustworthy pigs who would sell their own mothers to get ahead.

Here's to a hung parliment - cheers.

Ha ! I'm only outpowered by a margin of 1.52, with 56% of voters not voting for the winning candidate in the last election.

ooh get you in your very safe constituency. We ultrasafers can only envy you with your slightly less meaningless vote.

While I am not living in the UK anymore, where I WAS living, one person does not really have one vote, they have the equivalent of 0.131 votes. :(

However, only 49% of people did not vote for the winning candidate, so hurrah for Democracy!

Vote tory if you would prefer to see the poor robbed and the money given to the already wealthy with such vigour and enthusiasm that Marie Antonette would blush and ask if you were sure.

or

Vote Labour, if you want to see your tax money wasted in such an appauling fashion that even a drunken sailor would be ashamed.

or

Vote Liberal because they have never had a go before so it might take them a little bit longer to work out the best way of really screwing up the entire country.

Lets face it the other two have proved beyond all reasonable doubt they should not be permitted to govern us.

reds8n wrote:http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

Horribly misinformed site designed solely to beat the drum for the 'advantages' of proportional representation.

All electoral systems are first past the post if one candidate is elected, the idea that you have rounds of voting doesnt help as it encourages mediocrity, if your first choice is not good enough you get to vote for your second. However democracy should be about proactive choice, one ballot with ONE choice with a single majority. The idea of having rounds of elimination and second choices doesnt work as you still do not get the candidate you want, just less chance of not getting the candidate you don't want. Which is something entirely different.
This throws the philosophy of public mandate from the positive to the negative and you get less democracy that you started.

Proportional representation works better with 'lists' however lists do not account for local MP's you would be able to subdivide into regions at best and thus the electorate is denied their local representative.

All forms of democracy are inherently unfair by its nature few people if any get what they want, however local candidacies with a single majority winner is the best avalable stem for a nation of our size and population. There are many things wrong with our government system this isnt one of them. Frankly despite what voterpower.org implies all cast votes count, even those to joke candidates, the idea of the election is to determine who is fit (or least unfit) to govern. Votes for Monster Raving are protest votes on the quality of democracy. Casting a vote for the losing candidate is not wasting a vote its participating in the group process, its an exercise of assertiveness not compromise.

The proportional representation dogma aside the sites informatiojn is itself misleading for three reasons:

1. It takes no account for voter turnout. It only looks as votes cast, not available votes. In nearly all the constituencies if those who did not vote at all last election voted against the incumbent MP (for a single choice) the incumbent would likely fall. Very few even ultra safe seats have an actual 50% majority of the available electorate.


2. It takes no account of voter apathy. While turnout was poor in previous elections, it is becoming increasingly poorer. Anyone who actually does vote in the midst of this apathy will find their voting value increased.
This is different from point 1 because we do have stats for previous elections voter turnout which voterpower.org has decided to ignore. However voter apathy is likely increasing by all accounts, just look at the reaxctions here if fewer people vote those that vote count.


3. It takes no account of trends in popular opinion. People turned off Tory in droves in 1997, Labour is possibly going to suffer the same fate this time. Safe seats might not be safe, or as safe.

This site would do nothing but fuirther dishearten voters. In live in watfor which is marginal and can go one of three ways ansd my vote is only o.7 of a vote accourding to ths BS of the website. This is patently untrue, too many people are deciding not to vote, which I find alarming in the extreme. Votes damn well count and I will be voting Conservative this election.

I hate New Labour with a passion after what they have done since 1997, Old Labour was disagreeable but was loyal. New Labour shook the whole system just to provide for itself and has set our politics down a new and uglier road. New Tory are following them and the Lib Dems would to given the chance. But whichever you like least do vote for, because while too many people are being disillusioned and staying away rest assured the BNP fanatics are not staying away neither are the Islamics. For all the evils of New Labour it will be ten times worse if the disillusioned populace stays away enough for the fanatics to gain seats, and that frankly is more than an outside possibility, and that as yet refrains to comment on the growing trend of vote rigging.

How voting works:

YOU like to sit at home watching the last few episodes of lost whilst drinking a few glasses of wine. THEY like to go to the local supermarket, get drunk on cheap cider and have sex with trees, smearing the residue on your letterbox.

THEY outnumber YOU

bah :(

This is quite an interesting site that will take let you see how you might vote given a list of policies rather than the parties that put them forwards.

Votes are only meaningless in a safe seat for the people who vote against the safe candidate.

The people who vote for him or her are all thoroughly vindicated and empowered.

CadianXV wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8603591.stm

BBC wrote:Prime Minister Gordon Brown has confirmed that the UK general election will be held on 6 May.

Who are you going to vote for? Why? Do you still support Browns policies, or do you think Cameron would make a better leader?
Perhaps you prefer a smaller, independent party? Do you think there will be a hung parliament?

For our international Dakkites, who do you prefer? Why?

Discuss ad nauseam.

Help me out here. What are the rules for calling an election in a parliamentary system? Thats not standardized?

radiohazard wrote:I refuse to vote this year for one reason.

I don't think any of the parties can actually lead this country.

When the tories were in power, my family (who were hard working lower class folk) were practically destitute. Along came Mr Blair and my family are living comfortable lives

Explain this one to me please. I want more details.

My grandmother was working class, she worked in a factory, as a taxi driver, in a shop, in a bingo hall, among many other things.

She got two grants which enabled her to buy her little terraced house in Middlesbrough under Thatcher.

So please, tell me how they went from destitute to comfortable with the help of TB (Thats Tony Blair, not tuberculosis, although.... they are kinda similar)

Great thread!
I know the system seems gloomy for you guys, but I gotta say to me, the politics in britain seem far more enlivening and less frustrating than in Ireland. You've got people who actually believe in stuff and make policies out of that- sure, it might be objectionable and crazy, but at least there's some sort of thought. Our government, which is mostly far less qualified, generally just nicks british ideas and waters them down, making them less efficient and more individualistic (because Irish people like to pretend they're cantankerous and independant).
Our two main parties are actually REALLY identical, being the same party that split in half during the civil war.
I look forward to moving to the UK, getting into the system and becoming embittered and angry too, but for now I envy you guys a bit.
If I was there, and could vote, I don't know who I'd go for though. I'm pretty left, but the Lib Dems seem insane and I don't know much about your Greens but knowing Green parties in general and the attitudes of a lot of what I imagine are green party potential voters in the UK, I can only assume they're mental.
Labour seem pretty authoritarian and awful, and anything I've read on the Conservatives makes me feel dirty.

I have a feeling OUR Green Party might be slightly different to YOUR Green party, if you catch my drift, Boss!

I went on the Times election coverage website yesterday and was suprised at how small the Lib Dems number of seats acctually is. I thought they's be up around the 20% point, but they have (only fractionally) just under 10% in House of commons and the lords.

They do seem to be doing better at the local elections.

Our news today had Brown giving Labor's electoral manifesto and the reporter at the end said a very pertinent thing...
"How can anyone trust Labor to do something in the next 3 years, when they haven't been able to do it in the last 13 years."

Frazzled wrote:
Help me out here. What are the rules for calling an election in a parliamentary system? Thats not standardized?

From Parliament's website: The Parliament Act 1911 established the maximum life of a Parliament as five years. Parliaments have twice been extended beyond five years, during the two world wars.
A general election is one in which all the constituencies in the United Kingdom are contested. The size and number of constituencies are reviewed at intervals of between 8 and 12 years by the Parliamentary Boundary Commissioners and agreed by Parliament. The total number of constituencies to be contested at the next UK General Election will rise from 646 to 650.

The reasons for calling a general election are varied, but generally originate from the desire of governments to obtain a further and/or increased majority in the House of Commons for the next five years. Naturally, in such instances, the timing may be determined by the government's view of its chances of victory. But governments may be forced into a position whereby they have no option but to seek a renewal of confidence by the country in their own policies.

And here's a list of Governments Britain has had since 1945: Dates of General Elections since 1945:
Day of election : Government Elected
Thursday 5 July 1945 : Labour
Thursday 23 February 1950 : Labour
Thursday 25 October 1951 : Conservative
Thursday 26 May 1955 : Conservative
Thursday 8 October 1959 : Conservative
Thursday 15 October 1964 : Labour
Thursday 31 March 1966 : Labour
Thursday 18 June 1970 : Conservative
Thursday 28 February 1974 : Labour
Thursday 10 October 1974 : Labour
Thursday 3 May 1979 : Conservative
Thursday 9 June 1983 : Conservative
Thursday 11 June 1987 : Conservative
Thursday 9 April 1992 : Conservative
Thursday 1 May 1997 : Labour
Thursday 7 June 2001 : Labour
Thursday 5 May 2005 : Labour

panshandle wrote:Lets face it the other two have proved beyond all reasonable doubt they should not be permitted to govern us.

Yeah they have. Well, sort of, the Liberal party last held power in 1915, and they were half of what became the Liberal Democrats.

I would just like to remind people that NONE of the buggers in power would of actually done anything about the expenses, if it had not been leaked. NONE of them were in the process of changing the system, NONE of them were on record as saying that the system was wrong at the time of the leak. The only reason that it changed was because it was leaked, if nothing had been said it would of carried on as it was. Just remember that they all said that they weren't doing anything wrong, it was all within the guidelines. NONE of them had the balls to actually say before the leak to say that it was morally wrong and that the rules were wrong.

Wolfstan wrote:I would just like to remind people that NONE of the buggers in power would of actually done anything about the expenses, if it had not been leaked. NONE of them were in the process of changing the system, NONE of them were on record as saying that the system was wrong at the time of the leak. The only reason that it changed was because it was leaked, if nothing had been said it would of carried on as it was. Just remember that they all said that they weren't doing anything wrong, it was all within the guidelines. NONE of them had the balls to actually say before the leak to say that it was morally wrong and that the rules were wrong.

This is made even worse by the fact that 3 of the 4 politicians who will face charges (and the possibility of jail time) have been awarded legal aid (money from the the taxpayers) to help them fight their prosecutions. Sigh.

This does not shock me, most of them are only out for number 1, and everyone else comes a distant second.

I'll probably be voting green. Labour and conservative are basically both the same and I'm not a fan of lib dems. So much for NUS big push to get students to vote too, 'vote for whoever won't punish students, but make sur eit counts [vote for a big party] - they're all gonna screw students! If BNP/UKIP weren't such racist parties i might be tempted, but the newsletters i get stuffed through my door make me laugh, until I come back to reality and am horrified that they actually stand for it and it's not a spoof.

If a party came out and said they would be toughwer on the lazy asses we have they'd get my vote straight off. I don't mind work being given to immigrants etc. who do the job. What pisses me off is paying for the bums with my tax money and how well we treat our criminal and LET THEM OUT EARLY!!!! We live in a annny state for sure. Heck, I'm not allwed to step off the ground onto a ladder/chair/table etc. without first having working at height training to put up sodding CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS. And don't even get started on that whole idea the Gov't had not long ago to call it winterval in stead incase they offend immigrants/those with a different religion. Can you imagine us trying to ask other countries with a different culture to change their religious festivals to suit our beliefs?

Politics here is rubbish, we need a party who will put the country first, not their own quest for power.

The long-expected T.V date is upon us- who do you think will come out on top? Will it make a difference to you? And is this more or less important than the manifestos?

Link to Nick Robinson's commentary of the forthcoming debate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8621000/8621657.stm

I'm interested in the debate; sadly Nick Clegg has torpedoed the Lib Dems with his comments about UK Citizenship for illegal asylum seekers.

With all the regulations and restricts this 'debate' has, I would imagine it will be less entertaining and or informative than PM's questions, which happen every week.

Strictly only if I can't think of anything better to do.

I'll be watching, partially as I'm at work so no Sims 3 or WoW to distract me. lol

But I am interested in what they have to say if I'm honest, and I'm hoping to see Brown squirm a little.

I've decided that I'm voting Conservative this time for the first time ever, although sadly it doesn't mean as much as it should. Mainly as I'm slap bang in the middle of a Very Safe Con seat .. doh.

I'll still be voting mind you.

Brown actually handled himself surprisingly well - you could almost forget that him and his party are largely responsible for the awful mess our country's in. Almost.

Clegg was super-slick. Too slick for my taste. He was playing the 'White Knight' role as if his life depended on it: 'what these two aren't telling you is...', 'the two big parties aren't being straight with you...' All he seems to offer is big promises, safe in the knowledge that he'll never have to deliver on them. He is trading heavily on the fact that he is leader of the third party.

Cameron was solid, although I would have liked him to go after Brown with a bit more venom. He had a perfect opportunity to attack Brown on his record, and I think he let him off the hook a bit. I DID like the fact that he didn't lower himself to rsponding to Brown's 'airbrushing' comments. That shows class, something which his chief rival is sorely lacking.

Unfortunately I didn't get to see the show, but I have to say I would rather see politicians talk about their policies and how they will deliver them, than attack one another on a personal and professional level.

Monkeys sling poo at each other - people should have moved past that; especially people with the power over an entire nation.

That's the trouble with these debates though; the whole premise of them is to attack the other person's answers/policies - to 'win' if you will.

I think that Nick Clegg came out looking a lot stronger than i thought he would. Cameron was a bit flat, almost as if he thought that he had already done the hard work with his campaigning and this was an opportunity to appear calm and relaxed in the spotlight. Brown was the most defensive and bullish of the three, just continually pointing out the things Labour has done and defending vociferously the things that had worked.

It'll be interesting to see how the other debates go: Clegg did well enough for him to be taken more seriously (at least according to the viewers/analysts reactions afterward) and will surely face a tougher time in the next debate. If he handles himself well i may just be convinced to vote for him.