No, but given the choice, RON
Printable View
No, but given the choice, RON
Definitely won't be voting labour this time around. Conservatives are at the top of my list this time. Can't see me changing that.
All I know is who I'm not voting for.
No idea, I need to sit down and have a good look at all them. However I have feeling because they are all so lame, we may end up with a hung parliament.
If I had to make a choice now, then probably lib dem.
IMO if too many voters vote for Lib Dem, then we will have a hung parliament,Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowmaster
since they will just be taking away a majority vote from Labour & Conservative.
At general elections a vote for anything other than the two main parties is a wasted vote IMO,
in local elections it's a whole different story.
That depends on your local area. We've always had a two horse race between Lib-Dem and Conservative, Labour haven't had a look in for years!Quote:
Originally Posted by mikerr
But even where that (or similar) is true, it still is arguably, and often, a waste, because unless something radically changes in the attitude of the population, the LibDems aren't in for a chance of actual power .... though this time, they might get enough in a hung Parliament to be a very influential power-broker. But even then, it's only going to be as a result of horse-trading, where they agree to support something they otherwise wouldn't, in order to get something they want but don't have a direct mandate from the people for. Hardly a glowing example of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazaar
Oh sure, an MP has two main functions - the constituency "surgery" function to directly help individual constituents, and the "Party" function. But in the former, it didn't ought to matter which party the MP is because they're supposed to help regardless, and on party matters, the above argument holds true. However you cut it, the LibDems come up WAY short.
Consider the last election. Labour and Conservative were within some 800,000 votes of each other, on roughly 9.6m and 8.8m votes respectively, and that was enough (largely due to the way 'first-past-the-post' works) to give Labour a 160+ majority over the Tories, and 60+ overall majority. The LibDems were about 3 million votes short of that. If, this time, it's dubious whether even the Tories can win an overall majority, I can see any chance of a vote switch of anything remotely resembling the magnitude required to give the LibDems a short at power, short of power-broking.
Maybe, just maybe, if we had PR, there might be a chance, but even that has to be on the assumption that a lot of people that currently won't vote LibDem might do so under PR where their vote actually counted.
Given the two-horse LibDem/Tory race you have, perhaps voting LibDem is the best option available if the objective is to reduce the chances of the Tories getting an overall majority thereby letting Labour back in is the objective, or if supporting directly supporting Labour is the aim. So as a pro-Labour or Anti-Tory vote, it might be the best available option. Short of that, it's largely a waste because there isn't a viable option .... until or unless we have PR. But if the objective is to support he LibDems, it won't matter much if at all in the final result, and if the objective was to get Labour out, then the only real way to do it is to vote to put the Tories in, because at least under FPTP, it's a two-horse race for actual power, and the LibDems aren't in the race.
Unless we have PR for a General Election, in terns of national government for the UK, it's a two-horse race. That's not to say that regions voting for Plaid, or the SNP, or various NI parties etc aren't a viable option for regional purposes, but in terms of Westminster government, it's one of two. That is also, in my opinion, why the chances of ever getting PR are remote ... the only two parties that could do it have a very strong vested interest in not doing it - it might just let the LibDems in with a chance. It would certainly put more actual power in our hands, over determining who gets their backsides on the seats in Downing Street and the various Ministries, and I'm convinced the notion of giving us more say in that is abhorrent to both Labour and Tory parties alike.
I would like a hung Parliament. Or at least those members of it who took the country to war with Iraq should be hung. And probably the buggers who claim for homes they don't own etc.
I think there's a technical difference between a hung Parliament and a 'hung-from-the-nearest-tree' Parliament.
Though, I grant you, as a way of getting the turnout up, I'd guess it'd be a rip-roaring success. Probably close to 100%. :D
Same where I live, I always wonder why Labour, or any other insignificant parties, bother to field a candidate who will never win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazaar
When the results look like ~25k, give or take a few votes between the two, for Lib-Dem and Conservative, and the Labour candidate gets 7k, and then all the others are lucky if they get more than a few 100, it does make you wonder.
Sadly politicians dont think that the public should resort to overthrowing them, it worked in the past, dont see why it couldnt work again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Of course, its also worth remembering that we dont live in a democracy, we just have democratic elections, after which its just 4-5 years of tyranny, where the majority of people arent represented because they didnt vote for the person representing them.
Yes.
I vote at every opportunity and never miss...local/national/euro/xfactor....
I vote on policies and principles....to do other in my opinion is abusing your right/privilege/duty to vote. I would encourage everyone to vote positively not voting to prevent someone getting in or because they feel their choice has no chance (we'd all be supporting Man Utd with that view). I respect those that vote according to their beliefs and values, no matter what those are.
Not enough tress in London, but we do have many lamp posts, all we need is enough rope :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Saracen