So .... decided who to vote for?

[Saracen]

I'm not asking who you'll vote for. There's another thread for that, if you wish to say.

I'm asking if you've decided who, if anyone, it'll be. Not what that decision is.

Because I haven't. I haven't heard any convincing case from anyone, yet, that's convinced me to vote for them .... though the Greens have convinced me not to vote for them.

[Domestic_Ginger]

No clue what soever. Will need to find a summary somewhere.

I'm tired already of listening to politicians. Difficult questions on live media they just seem to draw out until the presenter is forced to move on due to time constraints. I don't really like Jeremy Vine but he does summarise for the audience before moving onto the next question. Usually remarking "so thats a no comment then" or similar.

[cheesemp]

I've already decided a few I definitely won't vote for but as to who I don't know yet. That said I'm still trying to decide if I should even bother. I've always been massively pro voting but I live in such a blue area (New forest east?) if I vote anything but conservative (or maybe libdem for councillors) i'm basically recording a protest vote but is anyone going to notice?

edit: Yes it is new forest east. You can see from the historic voting how much a tory safe seat it is...

[jimborae]

Hopefully The Monster Raving Loony Party will be fielding a candidate in my area as nobody is presenting a convincing or coherent case for my vote yet.

[Saracen]

I've already decided a few I definitely won't vote for but as to who I don't know yet. That said I'm still trying to decide if I should even bother. I've always been massively pro voting but I live in such a blue area (New forest east?) if I vote anything but conservative (or maybe libdem for councillors) i'm basically recording a protest vote but is anyone going to notice?

Doesn't that make it easier, in a sense?

I mean, vote blue and it doesn't matter as they've a honking great majority. Vote something else, and it doesn't matter since blue has a honking great majority.

So, you can vote whatever you like with the knowledge that it's effectively a protest vote.

I'm kinda faced with the choice of voting for someone I don't particularly want to keep out someone I really don't want, at the price of not bring able to vote where I actually feel more inclined to vote. But if I do vote for who I prefer, the result is helping to get the one I really don't want.

The biggest issue, though, is barely having heard a simple, straight, direct, open and honest answer from any of them, in months.

If they won't, despite months of probing by TV presenters, etc, tell us what they will do, if elected, .... and they all won't .... how in the name of all that's Holy are we supposed to know who to vote for?

I want to vote according to actual policies, real, detailed, coherent policies, not vague and often unfunded general ideas. For instance, Tories ....so you're going to cut welfare, and you know by how much, but you won't tell us who exactly it's going to land on, and by how much.

Some welfare cuts I'd absolutely support, like .... if it can be done cost-effectively .... freebies for wealthy pensioners. Others, I wouldn't. But unless you, and I mean ALL parties, spell out the bits you're spinning and desperately trying to avoid answering, you're expecting us to vote blind. It's disrespectful, dishonest, and disgraceful, and you're pretty much all at it. Then you wring your hands, all Uriah Heap-ish, and wonder why you're held in such low esteem, even contempt? If you want to see why, look in a mirror.

[KeyboardDemon]

I have never voted for anyone in my life, I always vote against the people or party that I dislike the most, if there was a party or politician I liked they would get my vote, until then I'll only vote for the idiot that I dislike less than the others.

[opel80uk]

I want to vote according to actual policies, real, detailed, coherent policies, not vague and often unfunded general ideas. For instance, Tories ....so you're going to cut welfare, and you know by how much, but you won't tell us who exactly it's going to land on, and by how much.

Some welfare cuts I'd absolutely support, like .... if it can be done cost-effectively .... freebies for wealthy pensioners. Others, I wouldn't. But unless you, and I mean ALL parties, spell out the bits you're spinning and desperately trying to avoid answering, you're expecting us to vote blind. It's disrespectful, dishonest, and disgraceful, and you're pretty much all at it. Then you wring your hands, all Uriah Heap-ish, and wonder why you're held in such low esteem, even contempt? If you want to see why, look in a mirror.

What your saying is entirely valid, but a part of me wonders who is to blame, the politicians or the public? de Maistre said 'Every nation gets the government it deserves', and to a degree, at least in democracies, I think he was right.

Part of the problem is that political parties now want to be, or a least give the impression that they are, all things to all people, as opposed to predominately for a particular group in society. This mad dash for the middle ground has left us with, mainly, bland politicians that unless you knew, could belong to any mainstream political party. I can see why UKIP have grown in popularity, though I disagree with a lot, if not all of what they say, but at least what they are proposing is different. Go back not to long ago, and it was clear what the ideals were that the parties stood for. Now? A fag paper separates them. And yet,we still vote for them, in our droves. What was that definition of madness again?

[Bagnaj97]

I'm in a Tory safe seat (they've won every parliamentary election here since 1937) and don't particularly want to vote for them, but UKIP are starting to worry me. UKIP beat them comfortably in the EU election last year, and have come close in a couple of by-elections over the last few years.

So it's a question of voting for the least-bad (greens imho), which will just be a protest vote, or a tactical vote for the Tories to help keep UKIP out.

[DanceswithUnix]

This may interest people on here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...eral-election/

Though it could be argued that it is just hot air.

Local council elections as well, doesn't look like much choice though.

[Jowsey]

I'm very young to politics (I'm only 21) but I'm already completely exasperated by it. Honestly, if my secondary school student council elections where like anything I've seen recently the teachers would have just chosen there favourite students and called it off because we were wasting everyone's time!

I feel it should be law for any televised advertisement or discussion for a political party that they can't mention any other party bar there own. Let the interviewers or student audience grill the other parties in there own interviews! I don't want to see everyone kicking each other because we just end up with a bunch of parties scrapping on the floor. I'd rather they all strive to appear the best choice (whether they keep there word when elected is another question. Seriously, they only ever get appraised every 5 years and don't listen to feedback...Surely we can have some kind of culpability mechanism for out and out lies, i.e. VAT rise)

Honestly, all I see when I look 90% of politicians is a very large child. This coming from the person who still hasn't quite worked out how the iron works...

BTW, I am undecided if I'm voting or not. I feel the urge to express my opinion, but like the above points show, I'm kind of annoyed with politics already.

[gupsterg]

I always vote against the people or party that I dislike the most, if there was a party or politician I liked they would get my vote, until then I'll only vote for the idiot that I dislike less than the others.

+1 , nice to know someone else uses this strategy

[peterb]

Decided and vote cast by post.

[SeriousSam]

What your saying is entirely valid, but a part of me wonders who is to blame, the politicians or the public? de Maistre said 'Every nation gets the government it deserves', and to a degree, at least in democracies, I think he was right.

Part of the problem is that political parties now want to be, or a least give the impression that they are, all things to all people, as opposed to predominately for a particular group in society. This mad dash for the middle ground has left us with, mainly, bland politicians that unless you knew, could belong to any mainstream political party. I can see why UKIP have grown in popularity, though I disagree with a lot, if not all of what they say, but at least what they are proposing is different. Go back not to long ago, and it was clear what the ideals were that the parties stood for. Now? A fag paper separates them. And yet,we still vote for them, in our droves. What was that definition of madness again?

You probably know anyway but it was Einstein; Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

These days politics is less about singular ideology and far more about mass psychology. I agree that the parties all appear to be separated by a "fag paper", but that is a deception created to woo swing voters who by and large sit somewhere in the "middle". In reality significant differences still lie below the surface, which if you read between the lines are discernible;

1. Size and purpose of state
2. Individual freedom / responsibility
3. Welfare - safety net vs. negative enabling

I could add more to the list, but in each case these things have different meanings to all of us. In the past they could be lumped together in collective ideals, hence left and right, but we are all far more individual with varying priorities. As an example immigration control is portrayed as a right wing ideal, yet has strong support among sections of working people who would ordinarily be classed as left of centre politically. The interesting irony for me is that although individuals still display "black and white" thinking, as a collective everything becomes a mass of grey. Consequently our politicians have become the same, to chase votes and power, much as your quote from de Maistre suggests.

Personally I'm with Plato: Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. However, this needs to be given a more modern context. In place of dictatorship we have a political elite, separate from the whole. In addition, tyranny is no longer enforced by the power of "arms", moreover by economics. We are all conditioned to be consumer slaves, in order to prop up our society, with the false promise "freedom of choice".

[The Hand]

The FT updates it's election result predictions daily here:

http://elections.ft.com/uk/2015/projections

Looks like the Tories are out.... If this doesn't change drastically.

[outwar6010]

Yep greens FTW

[Saracen]

What your saying is entirely valid, but a part of me wonders who is to blame, the politicians or the public? de Maistre said 'Every nation gets the government it deserves', and to a degree, at least in democracies, I think he was right.

Part of the problem is that political parties now want to be, or a least give the impression that they are, all things to all people, as opposed to predominately for a particular group in society. This mad dash for the middle ground has left us with, mainly, bland politicians that unless you knew, could belong to any mainstream political party. I can see why UKIP have grown in popularity, though I disagree with a lot, if not all of what they say, but at least what they are proposing is different. Go back not to long ago, and it was clear what the ideals were that the parties stood for. Now? A fag paper separates them. And yet,we still vote for them, in our droves. What was that definition of madness again?

Ooh, hard one.

I'm not inclined to blame the public. We are, after all, presented with the equivalent of a conjuring trick .... elections are all about deceit and distraction, IMHO, so we don't notice the reality of the shell game they're playing on us.

I do wonder, at least in relation to not answering questions, whether it's politicians or press/media to blame, and honestly? ..... both. Though, probably 75% press/media.

The 24/7 news cycle, instant coverage, cellphone video capabiluty etc, has all contributed, but a LOT of it comes diwn to the way do many interviewers seem to be trying to do a Paxman, though usually end up with a 5th rate pale imitation of it. Most of the current Newsnight team are like that, most of the time. They are, so often, blatantly obvious in trying to coax politicians into giving the answer they want by presenting very loaded and leading questions. As a result, politicians are trained to deflect, and never answer the question they were asked, but instead, twist it (often crudely) in order to parrot the script they had when they went in.

I get REALLY wound up when some politician responds to a genuine question with "that's not the question, the real question is ....". I feel like screaming at the TV, "no, you stinking hypocrite, the real question is the question you were bleeping well asked, you bleeping bleep."

BOTH politicians and interviewers seem to get carried away in their own peurile little point-scoring games, that they forget the disdain, the contempt, that their actions show to US, their viewers and electors.

So, yeah, IMHO, blame pols and press/media for the patronising attitude they take.