The Political Thread

[Professor Bear]

The way the Tories have behaved I'd be surprised if they ever got Re-elected!

Cheers

Sadly, people said that about the Tories before - when Thatcher was ousted.  They still got back in, and this time there's no single, unifying issue that galvanises the public against them like the Poll Tax Riots did, and if anything, I view Britain's population as less politicised these days that it used to be.  A massive protest vote is the only way I can see the Tories being definitively trumped and not just slinking back in as part of a coalition when a clear majority fails to materialise again, as much as it galls me to admit it, Dangerous Dave Cameron could do a much shitter job than the one he's done so far, and compared to the rest of the third world the UK isn't doing that bad.

[Leigh S]

I think the Tories are canny enough to have reined themselves in just enough to give them a chance, and if they get another shot will carve up whats left like a pack of piranhas... they arent going to do the damage this close to an election, but given another 5 years, we would really know what's what - sadly, I predict that's whats going to happen - you look at the UKIP vote, and you would expect that to come from disaffected Tories, but at least as much appears to come from Labour supporters who presumably don't know what they are voting for whether it be Labour or UKIP... as ever, we will get the Government we deserve, which is to say, not a good one.

[Proudhuff]

You're missing my point, Proudhuff.  I wasn't referring to the one Tory MP, I was referring to the forty odd Labour MPs at Westminster who, presumably, wouldn't be there if Scotland votes for independence.  With them gone, the Tories have a chance, with them still there, they have no chance.

I see what you mean, however I don't think they would ever hold the balance of power, Electing the next Tory/Ukipper Govt seems to be centred on Mondeo Man in Basildon or some-such place

[The Legendary Shark]

I don't see how my particular personal situation would be different under any of the parties. It's still all about money and control no matter what colour the curtains are in Brussels or Downing Street.

Don't vote - you'll only encourage them!

[Leigh S]

I thik the dioffernece is that Labour are generally wary bedfellows of business, whereas Tories are enthusiastic ones - the path may be the similar, but at least with Labour in charge we might not go so far so fast, and might avoid the real detours into absolute dismantling of every safety net.  So, yes, Labour mightnt be the dream party for me, but nothing winds me up more than the idea there is no diffference between the two - its the difference between being attacked by a trained rottweiler or a reluctant one...!

[The Legendary Shark]

Sorry, I can't agree with that. For example, just look who's paying Tony Blair's wages now - £13M last year alone - none other than JP Morgan, the bank that "convinced" the UK to sell its gold at knockdown prices. You think they pay him that because he was wary when in office?

[Jim_Campbell]

Don't vote - you'll only encourage them!

More accurately: don't vote, you'll only hand control of political agenda to those who do.

Want to know why the government doesn't give a shit about youth unemployment? Because they don't vote. Want to know why they're brutally attacking those on benefits whilst making guarantees to pensioners (who are the cause of the real hole in the public finances)? Because people on benefits don't vote, and when they do, they don't vote Tory. Pensioners, on the other hand, do vote and as a group skew right. Want to know which chunk of the population is most aerated over immigration? Pensioners.

Even if you accept that all the parties are basically peddling the same neo-lib agenda, they still have to get a chunk of the population to vote for them and you can at least vary the flavour of the neo-lib ice cream even if they're all basically the same product...

Cheers

Jim

[ZenArcade]

Cannot agree more with the comment above....voter apathy among the groups who are getting hammered by this govt will cause them to get a worse hammering the next time. People simply don't understand the value of a vote (or should I say of the votes of motivated groups of people).

[Hawkmumbler]

Whats peoples stance on spoiling votes? Does it count as a vote or not? It HAS to be counted but what it means is subjective. I view it as the closest to a "none of the above" option available.

[The Legendary Shark]

Votes have little value under the current structure. In my humble, the current system needs inverting. We should vote for our local representatives first, who should have absolute authority to do as they're told by the voters. These representatives (who we all know, as they are local) should then have the power to tell the local borough or county council what local communities need and they in turn should be able to tell Westminster what they need.

This way the power begins with local communities and trickles down through regional councils to London to Europe. Issues like immigration, then, become purely local matters as some areas need and benefit from immigration whilst others do not. This top down, "one size fits all" silly system we have now causes more problems than it solves.

I'm sure I've not explained that very well but it is a far from new idea.

[Jim_Campbell]

Whats peoples stance on spoiling votes? Does it count as a vote or not? It HAS to be counted but what it means is subjective. I view it as the closest to a "none of the above" option available.

It's a waste of a vote. If everyone bar a single person spoiled their votes in an election, whoever got that single vote would still win. The crucial difference with 'None of the above' is that if 'None of the above' wins then no one gets elected.

Cheers

Jim

[Frank]

just look who's paying Tony Blair's wages now - £13M last year alone - none other than JP Morgan, the bank that "convinced" the UK to sell its gold at knockdown prices. You think they pay him that because he was wary when in office?

Aye, New labour dropped their knickers for the financial sector. What's so annoying is that they seemed to get so little in return - they let the Square Mile do absolutely anything they wanted, and still didn't get enough in tax returns or increased GDP to build new schools or hospitals without saddling future generations with the burden of repaying the three-magic-beans-in-return-for-your-cow deals struck under PPP.

New Labour's time in office was characterised by inaction, complacency, and abject failure in almost every respect.

[Leigh S]

AS someone with kids attending a school in a rough neighbourhood during the Labour years, I saw a lot of money ploughed into that school and the area - whether it was money well spent, whether it was all PPP and a con I dont know... but at least these things were visible. Tories will also drop their knickers to use the lovely vernacular, but you arent even going to see a token or futile gesture the other way...

[Jim_Campbell]

New Labour's time in office was characterised by inaction, complacency, and abject failure in almost every respect.

Cheers

Jim

[TordelBack]

Tories will also drop their knickers to use the lovely vernacular...

I don't think Tories have knickers.