European Elections, Thursday 4th June- Discuss

[Blitzen]

Blitzen you are buying into this media propagated witch hunt. Not every MP is a bad person. Even the MPs that did misuse the system - it doesn't make them complete scum.
Get a little perspective here.
I can't tell whether or not your post was serious or not, but to advocate something like that even in jest...

I could fill several pages of discussion of people who are more morally bankrupt than our MPs.

I completely agree with you...they aren't all bad.
However, my comments were not tongue in cheek. I am genuinely disgusted about the way our ELECTED representatives are twisting a system from the public purse to furnish their own lifestyles. Problem is though, it near on impossible to decipher the honest from the dishonourable.

I hear all the time how Cameron is the Prime Minister elect and that the world may be become a better place should he take the helm.
All of a sudden though, his integrity in the expenses row is questioned also.

I would vote for someone that could prove his/her integrity. Problem is, none of them are open enough to show it.

[JPreston]

Well, I'm just surprised that anyone who voted Tory can later claim to be surprised when their Tory MP claims moat-cleaning, planting 214 trees in their backyard and building a servant's wing onto their house as living expenses.

I've not been following the expenses story so closely but there are three kinds of MP as far as I can see:

1) The majority (~530 out of ~650) who have not been outed as having claimed anything interesting at all.
2) ~110 who have claimed various bath plugs and curtains that the papers have been through in lurid detail.
3) ~10 who have used expenses to profit from property investment and in some cases designated different homes as their main residence for capital gains tax and MP expenses purposes.

Those in 3) are out-and-out fraudsters who should be prosecuted. Those in group 2) were acting within the guidelines, and as ridiculous as those guidelines seem to us they would have been the basis of what they were told to claim for. So change the guidelines by all means, but can we please talk about something else now because the country is in recession/war/heatwave and (back on topic) about to go to the polls in the European elections. I'm voting LibDem BTW .

[AledJ]

Not for one second saying it's a good idea but it'd give this country the kick up the arse it needs. Maybe we'd get a quicker and more meaningful response from the other parties to deal with this mess, whilst stimulating more of the general public to get involved. Voter apathy has been replaced by a general disgust across the board and the way things are going (MPs still not grasping the crap-storm they've created), we'll be dealing with the consequences soon enough.

I don't know what kind of system needs implementing, but we shouldn't have to tolerate MPs benefiting from "mistakes" between now and the general election. Once MPs are elected there's sod all we can do until the next time they're up for election. We should at least have the ability to call for a vote of no confidence for our representatives - they're supposed to be there on our behalf, we pay them so should be able to sack them too and not just once every few years.

Its not even an idea worth considering!!!! Allowing a party like the BNP to get even more power would be a disaster!!!!!!!!!

Think back to how the Nazis gained power!! It was all through fear + lies and mixed into that was the anger and frustration of normal people!! Yes our system needs a wake up call but that will not achieved by letting raciest parties in!!!

I do agree with on the vote of no confidence!! Those MP'S who said they will be standing down should by holding by-election now!!!

[Rave]

Saracen, I largely agree with your posts, but what is your point? You seem to be advocating not voting, as voting legitimises the current system, but then what is your alternative? One can only assume that it's taking to the streets carrying pitchforks?

Do you have your pitchfork ready? When and where should we meet you carrying ours?

The current expenses scandal involves our domestic MPs, but this is a Euro election. Now MEPs are if anything worse offenders when it comes to abuse of their expenses, as I posted here (in a remarkably similarly titled thread ), but to vote (or not vote) on Euro elections on the basis of a domestic scandal seems a bit odd.

Anyway, having read some Conservative election literature, I'm reluctantly going to vote for them, since what they proclaim as their objections to the shortcomings of the current EU system seem to largely chime with mine. I'm not going to vote UKIP since I've never read anything to convince me that they're not motivated more by xenophobia than genuine moral principle. I'm not going to vote BNP for loads of reasons, not least that they're clearly a racist party. I'm not going to vote Lib Dem or Labour since they clearly seem to favour the status quo as far as the EU is concerned.

That's not to say that I'll vote Conservative in the next general election- I won't, because given the recent demograhpic changes in my constituency it'd be a complete waste of a vote. But, since the Euro elections are a quasi-PR system, I think voting tory makes sense to me.

[menthel]

Knee-jerk voting in EU elections for 'other' parties to try to give the main parties a 'shock' on the domestic front is quite frankly stupid. Remember that a hell of a lot of our law making comes from the EU now. Therefore don't waste your vote on such plans and actually give it to the party that most closely follows your own beliefs or attitudes.

Its madness to think that these EU elections don't matter!

[JPreston]

Anyway, having read some Conservative election literature, I'm reluctantly going to vote for them, since what they proclaim as their objections to the shortcomings of the current EU system seem to largely chime with mine. ...

But dude, the tories are an absolute joke on, and in, Europe. They are identical to UKIP in fact

They had historically been in a powerful and influential centre-right coalition along with Sarkozy and Merkel, however in a bid to appease euro-sceptics (is there any other kind of tory?) on domestic issues, Cameron left this coalition and went off to join an insane collection of lunatic fringe hard-right catholic parties from East Europe (such economic powerhouses as Poland, Lativia and Czech republic) instead. They are anti-women's rights, anti-environment, anti-gay rights, and in the Latvian party's case pro-Waffen SS.

It's one thing to list objections, but entirely another to be in a position to ever change what you are objecting to. The UK Conservative party have relegated themselves to a squawking fringe of nutcases in Europe, who will never be able to deliver on any of Cameron's promises (bear in mind he is concentrating only on getting into No 10, his 'policies' on Europe exist only to signal his fitness for domestic PM). But in throwing away the UK's voice like that, he has sold us down the river - whatever Tory MEPs we send (not to mention any future Tory govt) are already discredited and not to be taken seriously by the other delegates (well, those delegates who accept global warming and do not attend Nazi parades at least). How can that be a good thing for the UK?

[Saracen]

Saracen, I largely agree with your posts, but what is your point? You seem to be advocating not voting, as voting legitimises the current system, but then what is your alternative? One can only assume that it's taking to the streets carrying pitchforks?

Do you have your pitchfork ready? When and where should we meet you carrying ours?

The current expenses scandal involves our domestic MPs, but this is a Euro election. Now MEPs are if anything worse offenders when it comes to abuse of their expenses,.......

That's not to say that I'll vote Conservative in the next general election- I won't, because given the recent demograhpic changes in my constituency it'd be a complete waste of a vote. But, since the Euro elections are a quasi-PR system, I think voting tory makes sense to me.

Well, there've been several posts so I'm not sure which one(s) you mean.

One point, though not explicitly made, is that I'm not arguing for, or against, any specific party .... at least, not in this thread. In large part, that's because I think we (in a GE) have a choice of an incompetent or a cipher. I know what I think of Brown, and so does anyone else that's read my posts on him in the past. But Cameron? He's a relatively plausible and competent speechmaker, but in terms of what he stands for (other than getting elected) .... well, it's still a bit of a mystery. For quite a while after his election as leader, I could see, and agree with, his logic in not making too much in the way of policy statements. He couldn't implement anything, and the risk was that the situation would change by the time he could, and he'd be stuck with policies designed for a different set of circumstances. And guess what, the banking crisis, then a global recession happened, and circumstances changed beyond recognition. So, I that, he was right.

But now? Well, we're at most a year (to the day) from the next General Election, and it could be a close as a few weeks. He's (apparently) lost his Home Secretary, looks to be going to lose (or dump) his Chancellor and there's at least a couple of other Cabinet level ministers in the firing line over expenses and other things. If, on top of that, the Local/Euro elections are as bad as polls and media speculation suggest they might be, then we just might see a Labour backbench putsch, if those backbenchers decide that the GE is lost and that their own seats are best safeguarded by pushing Brown overboard. In terms of the electoral timetable, the recess and Labour party rules, it's a long shot, but conceivable.

So .... if we could be a couple of months from a GE, and with the Tories and LibDems (unsurprisingly) calling for one, it's about time Cameron put some meat on the bones of his policy statements.


Next point .... it's a Euro (and local) election, so domestic politics and the expenses scandal isn't an issue. Well, I don't entirely agree. That might be how it should be, but I don't believe for a nanosecond that it is the case. Three reasons. First, I doubt the bulk of voters are going to see the distinction, because they're too flippin' angry. IMHO, it IS going to be a vote about MPs, whether we like it or not. Second, part of the anger (though a small part, I suspect) is going to be about the direction of the EU project, growing federalisation, the Lisbon treaty, the lack of a referendum to get OUR views on that, anf the stance of the major parties on that, where the views of the main party's MPs and MEP are more or less from the same hymn book. So, if you support the Tory stance, for instance, that WE ought to get a say, then that might well be the issue that determines how a lot of people vote if they are focussed on the EU in their decision-making process.

Third reason ..... those angry about MPs expenses are likely to be broadly aware that MEPs are every bit as bad if not a fair bit worse. They might not have the details, and they might not have been the focus of the Telegraph-led exposé, but I rather suspect that most people see little difference in principle between MPs and MEPs .... both are groups containing lots of people with their snouts embedded up to the ears in the public trough.

So no, I don't think this election is going to draw much of a distinction between which bunch of politicians we're electing.

If there is a difference, it's in that traditionally, most people vote what they always have, and that's probably what their parents did. In UK elections, it's for whatever party they felt in tune with. And largely, it's because most people aren't interested enough in politics to pay much attention, certainly not outside of a few weeks before an election. We all know, if we've seen anything about politics, that elections are decided by about 15%-20% of the vote, because the rest is pretty static and cancels each other out. It;s the floaters that really matter, and even then, only the floaters in marginals.

But this time, we have a level of contempt for and anger about MPs that those traditional positions may well have been badly damaged, if not broken. Labour got a large swing in '97 because of disenchantment with the Tories, partly because of "sleaze", and partly because of the arrogance that comes from too long in power. Well, my reading is that the disenchantment with the Tories in not a patch on the disenchantment with Labour. Complicating it is that the Tories haven't exactly been polishing their haloes recently (moat-cleaning, and duck houses, for instance, and Conway's "family business" in politics.

So we just MIGHT have a different game in play this time. If the public anger is deep enough, then a strategic vote, such as one putting UKIP above Labour, might well be enough to scare the knickers clean off our MPs (not MEPs). If the nature of one vote every five years for our MPs leaves us, the electorate, largely isolated from any actual decision-making (and it does). then that's even more so with the PR-based Euro voting system where we don't even have a direct link between vote and resulting MEP, because of the list basis not a constituency basis.

So, it may well be that the biggest impact we can have on how we're governed is precisely to do what many people will do instinctively, which is to treat Thursday vote and a referendum on the state of politics as a whole ,and if it's largely aimed at domestic politicians, so be it.


Which brings me to my last point, which addresses your first one. Am I advocating not voting? Not exactly. What I am doing, though, is trying to make the point that the hackneyed old argument about not voting being an abnegation of responsibility is a flawed argument. It would be fine if we had a good system, but we don't.

In some ways, it's like asking someone you're about to murder if the prefer to be strangled or electrocuted .... they will regard it as the wrong question. Even morally, if the system stinks, and by taking part in it your are validating the system and giving it a mandate, are you right to perpetuate the system by taking part in it? If, for instance, nobody voted, do you not think the system would have to be changed?

As it is, we have MPs from all major parties mouthing off about how the system needs changing, and I mean the constitutional deal, not just the expenses system. Well, I agree with that. But the result of the expenses farce is that most people simply don't trust their MPs, or at least, don't trust a LOT of them. And they're fully aware that it was our current MPs that more than once rejected attempts to change the current expenses system, and our current government that promised to make constitutional change, and then merely scrapped the hereditary peers, stuffed the hole with a preponderance of their owns supporters and did nothing more for TEN YEARS.

So, the current MPs, after the expenses scandal, don't have a credible mandate to change the system. If you need to change operating procedures in the asylum, you don't leave it to the images to draw up the new rulebook. And Brown's government have already been making noises about a "committee" that will consist largely of ministers. Well, without a General Election so WE can through out those that we feel don't deserve their seats, that committee will have no real mandate. And all the signs are that if we do have such an election, Cameron (like it or loathe it) is likely to be the PM running it. Brown, an unelected PM without his own mandate, remember, does not have a mandate for huge constitutional change, especially when his party have had 12 years to do it, and are only on about it now in an attempt to change the subject from MPs expenses.


My point, therefore, was not so much to advocate not voting, as to highlight that I, personally, do not feel any moral obligation to do so. Given the system, and given the circumstances, the old moral blackmail about voting because we owe it to those that died for our system doesn't wash, as many of those that died for our system are probably turning, no spinning, in their graves at what we've let it turn into.

There's an old "Irish" joke about asking Paddy how he;d get to London from here, and his answer is "I wouldn't start from here". That's rather how I feel about this election - I don't want to be starting from a point where I'm expected to cast a vote to express a preference in a system where I feel the system has let us down badly.

Pitchfork? Dangerous. If I thought revolution would result in a better system, I'd either take part or at least stand and cheer it on. But I feel there's a better than even chance that we'd at best swap one set of rogues for another, and that two might actually be very lucky if that's all we swapped our current ones for. It's also be very hard to know in advance that what we were going to get would be better. Given the powers of the establishment and the resources they can call on, just about any revolution would be doomed to be put down by force unless you had superior dorce, which means the army on your side. How to do that without ending up with the country run by military dictatorship? Well, that's a conundrum, and personally, a risk I would not want to see run.

So, we have a system I think is basically flawed, operated by "representatives" who do precious little representing of the people that elected them and, in many cases, who have the moral fibre of a whorehouse manager, and where the only way to be sure of change is a successful armed revolt, which may well be a case of jumping out of the frying pan into an extremely hot fire, and in any event, is far too great a risk to be something I want to see.


Our best hope, as I see it, is an election followed by serious political reform, but that latter has to come from a government with a recent and as legit as possible, mandate. Brown, unless he wins a general election, which seems highly unlikely, does not have such a mandate.

Therefore, if I was to advocate anything (and I wasn't), it would be to pick whatever candidate in these elections was likely to send the strongest message we could to OUR government that we want real, serious change and a great deal more accountability, and a great deal more "representation". At the very least, that entails castrating the power of the whips office and actually giving Parliament a serious and effective role in scrutinising prospective legislation properly, amending it where need-be and holding the government, whoever it is, to account. Reduce the power of the executive A LOT, and give ordinary MPs (after an election) more political teeth.

As far as I'm concerned, right now we have a head of steam up in public anger, and if we wait for a General Election, which might be a year away, we'll risk lkosing that head of steam, and let the 'system' off the hook.

So if I thought voting for a party I otherwise might not would achieve that, then I would do so, even if I don't believe in what that party stands for. If I felt not voting at all would achieve that, then I would do so. And I feel that the effect of ANYTHING we do in electing MEPs will have so little direct effect on the results of what the EU does that I'll cheerfully ignore that and use my vote as a poll on our domestic situation.

I don't advocate anything, though, for what anyone else should do. One, but not the only reason, is that even if I were to advocate following my reasoning and voting for the same objectives, what anyone else votes to achieve those objectives might well be different. Personally, if voting UKIP would do it, that's what I'd do. If voting green would do it, that's what I'd do. If voting BNP would do it, well, I might even swallow a couple of packets of anti-nausea medication and do that. Oh all right, even I probably wouldn't go that far. But you get my point. We have a system that's been manipulated to screw us over for decades, and I'm ANGRY about it. Whatever I thought had the best chance of changing it for the better is what I'd advocate. Now all I need is someone to tell me what that might be.

[Blitzen]

I don't want to be starting from a point where I'm expected to cast a vote to express a preference in a system where I feel the system has let us down badly.

Thanks Saracen.
That was what i was trying to say when i said i wouldn't vote.

It isn't anything to do with the fact that i don't want to use my vote....i do.
BUT
Why should i when i don't trust ANY of the candidates that are available to me.

[menthel]

However much people may think a protest vote will shake up UK politics then it must be remembered that so much of our legilation is passed down from the EU in the form of directives etc. To give your vote to a smaller, fringe party with whose policies you may either not agree or are not sure of is just not a good idea. I know people are upset with politicians as a whole but our chance to actually have a say and get people in who share our views doesn't happen all that often. Therefore people really should think carefully. Or if they still insist then vote for a party like the Green's who will do much less damage than the nutters in UKIP or even worse.

The same goews for all of these calls for a general election now. Itss absolute folly. For the public to vote now, whilst angy and not considering the options would just be wrong. I, for one, don't want to vote until they have all sat down and sorted out a new way for parliment to work. I would stop their summer holiday , sit them all down and make them work together to sort it out.

This happened at a bad time for the EU elections and quite frankly people knee-jerk voting angrily scares me a lot.

[Saracen]

However much people may think a protest vote will shake up UK politics then it must be remembered that so much of our legilation is passed down from the EU in the form of directives etc. To give your vote to a smaller, fringe party with whose policies you may either not agree or are not sure of is just not a good idea.

In my view, the single worst aspect of the EU is the relentless drive towards federalism. We, the people of the UK, have never been asked if we wanted that. And when we were taken into the EEC without so much as being asked by our politicians, and only then given a vote on leaving, and being told that we faced economic ruin if we did, we were explicitly and repeatedly told the EEC did NOT involve the integration is all sorts of areas that we have ended up with.

The EPP is the driving force behind that federalisation. Cameron and his Tories don't believe in it. There's no point in being part of a large group if it's taking you to places you explicitly don't want to go, and if your objections to that direction within the group are overruled it just ignored.

Better to vote for a fringe group of whom the people you voted for are a prime component and a driving force, than for a large group that ignores the people you voted for and does the opposite of what you want.

In our "democracy", be it UK or EU< you don't get to pick an choose on individual topics. You get one vote, for a candidate, or a party or a group. So all we each can do, as individuals, is to work out which way of voting either achieves the best mix of policies you support, or if there's a red line topic which, in your judgement, overrides all other considerations, vote for that.

I can't pick my vote so that it expresses my view on each bit of EU law, on each directive that gets foisted on us. If I could, I would. Instead, I either have to pick my best mix, or go for a red line subject. If I have a red line subject, it's the ever more dominant spread of a federalisation we've never been asked if we wanted.

Of course, successive governments could have asked us. Heath could have asked before taking us into the common market instead of lying to us about the long term objectives, and before anyone objects to characterising it as lying, he's admitted it was. Thatcher could have asked us prior to Maastricht. Blair/Brown have had opportunities, not least, overt the Constitution. At least, now, the Tories have made their commitment to a referendum clear. Mind you, so did Labour, in a manifesto commitment, but they found a way of getting round that promise, didn't they? UKIP have made their stance pretty clear too.

So, fringe party or not, or what's probably going to be the next government of this country but in a small group, if that best represents my way of expressing the view I want "represented", then they are the ones to vote for. What would be wrong would be to vote for a Tory party that didn't leave a large group so diametrically opposed to what I want on a red line subject.

The same goews for all of these calls for a general election now. Itss absolute folly. For the public to vote now, whilst angy and not considering the options would just be wrong. I, for one, don't want to vote until they have all sat down and sorted out a new way for parliment to work. I would stop their summer holiday , sit them all down and make them work together to sort it out.

On the contrary, to have any democratic legitimacy for major constitutional change, ANY government needs the backing of the people they're supposed to represent. If Brown thinks he has a mandate from us to make such changes, prove it by calling an election. He'd win, and get a five year mandate .... if his belief is right. If it isn't right, he's lose power, but then, that'd be because he doesn't have the mandate he thinks he does.

As for this lot "sorting it out", do we, the British public, the electorate, actually trust them to sort it out? Do we want the 50 or so (so far) MPs that have already announced they're standing down, mostly because they don't dare face their own constituents, voting on the future of our constitutional system? After all, most of them have already demonstrated a mind-boggling chutzpah over their expense claims. So if we can't trust them over that, why trust them over something that critical?

However much people may think a protest vote will shake up UK politics then it must be remembered that so much of our legilation is passed down from the EU in the form of directives etc. To give your vote to a smaller, fringe party with whose policies you may either not agree or are not sure of is just not a good idea. I know people are upset with politicians as a whole but our chance to actually have a say and get people in who share our views doesn't happen all that often. Therefore people really should think carefully. Or if they still insist then vote for a party like the Green's who will do much less damage than the nutters in UKIP or even worse.

The same goews for all of these calls for a general election now. Itss absolute folly. For the public to vote now, whilst angy and not considering the options would just be wrong. I, for one, don't want to vote until they have all sat down and sorted out a new way for parliment to work. I would stop their summer holiday , sit them all down and make them work together to sort it out.

This happened at a bad time for the EU elections and quite frankly people knee-jerk voting angrily scares me a lot.

Just because people are angry, and rightly so, doesn't mean their reactions will be knee-jerk. What it comes down to is that you (or I) don't know why people will vote as they do. It might be knee-jerk, or that they deliberately decide to withhold their vote from a party they feel doesn't deserve it.

Let's pick, simply as an example, a disenchanted life-long Labour voter. I know a few who had decided, before the expenses scandal, that New Labour wasn't what they thought it was, and didn't stand for what they thought it did. They aren't likely to vote Tory, come what may. That leaves a third-party, the LibDems, or a "fringe" party, be it UKIP, or whoever.

And even if people do vote in a knee-jerk way, because they feel they've been conned, and deliberately conned at that, by the people they might have voted for, and let down by a system designed to perpetuate the status quo, and if they decide to react in a knee-jerk way out of anger, well, that's part of the system we have. If people can't vote because they're angry, what else precludes their right to vote?

It's one thing people knee-jerk voting because of the current day's today's deliberately provocative Daily Mail story on illegal immigrants. It's entirely another for people to vote because a perfectly justifiable anger that the system has been rigged to abuse their trust, by the people in it.
They have a right to be livid about that ... and to vote accordingly. It might be the only way to get the system changed.

[Stringent]

Please tell me you touch type Saracen!!

I wonder though, if we hadn't gone into a recession, would we know about all these expenses? Also IS our economy getting better or is it a blip, as the &#163; to $ is better than what it was a few months ago. House prices are increasing ...

I won't be voting Labour, if there is a General Election despite a reshuffle and candidates standing down, there will be a lot more minor parties getting seats in the HoP.

As for MEP, while I am waiting for 60GB to copy over on our servers I might as well have a look and see who is offering what.

[schmunk]

Please tell me you touch type Saracen!!

[menthel]

I think you give far too much credit to the British public. Decisions will be made by them in arbitary, knee-jerk way and in my view to the detrement of us all. The vast majority of people won't go out and look into the subject. They will only have 1 source of reference, be it the BBC, the daily mail or the inane blather they hear on radio phone ins. I also trust this lot of MPs to sort out the problems just as much as I trust the next lot. I don't see them being any different as people, perhaps even worse as a completely professionalised set of politicians who have no other life experience.

Then again this may be a reflection of my view of the world and the people it contains. I trust the general public and my fellow man about as much as I do politicians.

Shame really.

[JPreston]

I think you give far too much credit to the British public. Decisions will be made by them in arbitary, knee-jerk way and in my view to the detrement of us all. The vast majority of people won't go out and look into the subject. They will only have 1 source of reference, be it the BBC, the daily mail or the inane blather they hear on radio phone ins. I also trust this lot of MPs to sort out the problems just as much as I trust the next lot. I don't see them being any different as people, perhaps even worse as a completely professionalised set of politicians who have no other life experience...

That's correct

Although one difference with the next lot is their refusal to give up the incredible amount of paid work they manage to do on the side, despite their allegedly full-time jobs as MPs, because they 'could not afford to live' on an MPs meagre package (and had absolutely no shame in explicitly saying so only six months ago, before the expenses headlines).

But it's not as though any of that could possibly lead to a conflict of interest with them channelling government spending of public funds directly into their own back pockets, right? Right...?

William Hague Shadow Foreign Secretary - Has earned up to £110,000 from after-dinner speaking this year; up to £95,000 from being parliamentary adviser to various groups and two directorships.

Oliver Letwin Tories' policy chief - Director of NM Rothschild Corporate Finance Ltd.

Alan Duncan Shadow Business Secretary - Owner of Harcourt Consultants, plus directorships

Francis Maude Shadow Cabinet Office minister - Member of a Barclays committee; seven directorships.

Andrew Mitchell Shadow International Development Secretary - Seven directorships.

Andrew Lansley Shadow Health Secretary - Director of digital marketing agency

Lord Strathclyde Tory leader in House of Lords - Six directorships.

Michael Gove Shadow Education Secretary - Up to £65,000 for Times column.

Jeremy Hunt Shadow Culture Secretary - Adviser to Bristol Port Company.

David Willetts Shadow Universities Secretary - Up to £80,000 as pensions adviser.

Liam Fox Shadow Defence Secretary - Lectures for medical education firm

Eric Pickles Shadow Communities Secretary - Up to £15,000 as adviser to Royal British Legion Industries.

Shadow Cabinet Revolts at Camerons Plan to Curb Their Outside Earnings

[Lucio]

Annoyingly I wanted to vote how I always voted, I talked to the candidates when they came around. This time I've had next to no contact with either the candidate or their campaign staff. It's like the MEP's and councillors themselves can't be bothered, even the local newspaper hasn't had any real interviews or coverage.

How on earth are we supposed to vote if we don't know the person we're voting for?

[Stringent]

How on earth are we supposed to vote if we don't know the person we're voting for?

Go to the party website and view their policies.