Who Should You Vote For ?

[Saintandy666]

Being 6 when Labour came to power I've seen nothing but Blair and Brown all my life really. And I've had enough. Blair went to war on a lie, conned the public into believing it would be for the greater good, yet it was only self serving and look what it did. Gordon Brown, spineless coward. I was prepared to give him a chance when he came in, he said he'd promise change, yet it's just a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. Worst PM we've ever had. And I can't stand the sight of his corrupt government and his cronies, Mandelson, Harman, Darling etc. they make me sick.

 

I'm not a Tory supporter by any stretch of the imagination but I'm more than sure I'd like to give them a chance to prove themselves. It is perfect time for them to come in and be an improvement on Labour, which can't be that difficult. I'm prepared to see what they can do, I'll let them have a chance.

 

If, however, they c*ck it up big style, then I'm sad to say I would have lost confidence in all politics and I'd be looking for something a little bit more extreme than your standard 3 main parties, who all seem to be converging towards the same viewpoints anyway.

 

Vote for change? Yes, I will, a change from Gordon Fxcking Brown and his inept Labour cabinet.

 

I was 4 when Labour came to power, so I too don't really know any different. However, I don't give a crap how 'bad' Labour is, David Cameron has no substance, and for the reasons I said in my last post, I never want him or Osbourne(particularly Osbourne) in power. To be honest, if you want REAL change from the status quo, vote Lib Dems or Greens or another party that isn't Labour or Conservatives. Labservatives have been in power for way too long if you want to look at it from that view.

[JackFrost]

Being 6 when Labour came to power I've seen nothing but Blair and Brown all my life really. And I've had enough. Blair went to war on a lie, conned the public into believing it would be for the greater good, yet it was only self serving and look what it did. Gordon Brown, spineless coward. I was prepared to give him a chance when he came in, he said he'd promise change, yet it's just a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. Worst PM we've ever had. And I can't stand the sight of his corrupt government and his cronies, Mandelson, Harman, Darling etc. they make me sick.

 

I'm not a Tory supporter by any stretch of the imagination but I'm more than sure I'd like to give them a chance to prove themselves. It is perfect time for them to come in and be an improvement on Labour, which can't be that difficult. I'm prepared to see what they can do, I'll let them have a chance.

 

If, however, they c*ck it up big style, then I'm sad to say I would have lost confidence in all politics and I'd be looking for something a little bit more extreme than your standard 3 main parties, who all seem to be converging towards the same viewpoints anyway.

 

Vote for change? Yes, I will, a change from Gordon Fxcking Brown and his inept Labour cabinet.

 

You're obviously to young to remember the times of Thatcher/Major.

 

200,000 people turned up when the Poll Tax riots happened under the Tory government. As bad as 'this corrupt government' have been there hasn't been the social division and unrest there was under the Tories (even with the Iraq War)

 

In 1997 Blair got in with a landslide victory and 'New Labour' have won 2 elections since. That's how bad the Tories were previously. . .

[Thedelldays]

You're obviously to young to remember the times of Thatcher/Major.

 

200,000 people turned up when the Poll Tax riots happened under the Tory government. As bad as 'this corrupt government' have been there hasn't been the social division and unrest there was under the Tories (even with the Iraq War)

 

In 1997 Blair got in with a landslide victory and 'New Labour' have won 2 elections since. That's how bad the Tories were previously. . .

and went on to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people around the world (i know, i took part in both conflicts)..yes, maggie and major were real tyrants.

 

as for poll tax..dont we have something very similar anyway..? some even think that the poll tax would be better these days

Edited 4 April, 2010 by Thedelldays

[Gingeletiss]

You're obviously to young to remember the times of Thatcher/Major.

 

200,000 people turned up when the Poll Tax riots happened under the Tory government. As bad as 'this corrupt government' have been there hasn't been the social division and unrest there was under the Tories (even with the Iraq War)

 

In 1997 Blair got in with a landslide victory and 'New Labour' have won 2 elections since. That's how bad the Tories were previously. . .

 

Yes, and the Tories got in then, because labour had virtually bankrupt the country..........guess the wheels have turned again. FFS, you only need to look at Labours failings, how could you even begin to want those clowns to govern for another four years!

[bridge too far]

I started working for the NHS in 1991 and I can remember well how decimated it was then. Dingy, outdated hospitals, way too few clinical staff, waiting lists that were so long that many people had to wait years sometimes for fairly routine procedures.

 

And before anyone says Hospital Acquired Infections, I remember that my father died from MRSA just weeks before the 97 election, so it was around even then.

 

In almost 20 years of working for the NHS I've seen HUGE improvements, some of them driven by medical progress 'tis true, but I'm proud of my small involvement in the planning of two wonderful new hospitals that are clean, bright and efficient.

 

And Mr TF's knee surgery last month - just 4 weeks from seeing his GP to having his operation.

 

It would be so sad if all this progress were to be reversed.

[RedAndWhite91]

I was 4 when Labour came to power, so I too don't really know any different. However, I don't give a crap how 'bad' Labour is, David Cameron has no substance, and for the reasons I said in my last post, I never want him or Osbourne(particularly Osbourne) in power. To be honest, if you want REAL change from the status quo, vote Lib Dems or Greens or another party that isn't Labour or Conservatives. Labservatives have been in power for way too long if you want to look at it from that view.

 

That's fair enough that you're a young'un too, it's interesting how our opinions differ on growing up with Labour. At the end of the day it is just down to opinion isn't it. I still feel David 'Dave' Cameron comes across as more trustworthy than Brown, not sure why. I think it is a little harsh to say he has no substance, I genuinely think he does. Only time will tell though. The letters I have received from the Tories have made me think "Hm, yeah, I like that idea" to myself, but again, only time will tell if they actually go through with their promises, or if they are just simply 'ideas' at the end of the day. Labservatives, as you put it.

 

In an ideal world the Lib Dems would come to power and sort out the country. Brilliant. But I can't see it happening. And don't remind me of the argument: "Well, if everyone 'wasted a vote' on Lib Dem then they'd come to power" I just can't see it happening.

 

I'm pretty disillusioned with Government as it is, if the Conservatives don't deliver, well, that'll be the final straw for me and the status quo!

[RedAndWhite91]

You're obviously to young to remember the times of Thatcher/Major.

 

200,000 people turned up when the Poll Tax riots happened under the Tory government. As bad as 'this corrupt government' have been there hasn't been the social division and unrest there was under the Tories (even with the Iraq War)

 

In 1997 Blair got in with a landslide victory and 'New Labour' have won 2 elections since. That's how bad the Tories were previously. . .

 

Vaguely remember Major, but yes, you're right, I'm too young. I know what the Poll Tax riots were as well.

 

You can see why Blair was voted in, fresh new face, bright vision for the future. But that bright vision has turned into a dull nightmare. Now it seems the Conservatives are about to win a landslide victory, and I just hope they can learn by the past mistakes made by previous governments. As I said in my previous post, only time will tell whether they will be a success or a failure. If they fail then they have no-one else to blame other than themselves, just like Labour. Oh, except Labour won't blame themselves. It's always someone else's fault isn't it.

[bridge too far]

Vaguely remember Major, but yes, you're right, I'm too young. I know what the Poll Tax riots were as well.

 

You can see why Blair was voted in, fresh new face, bright vision for the future. But that bright vision has turned into a dull nightmare. Now it seems the Conservatives are about to win a landslide victory, and I just hope they can learn by the past mistakes made by previous governments. As I said in my previous post, only time will tell whether they will be a success or a failure. If they fail then they have no-one else to blame other than themselves, just like Labour. Oh, except Labour won't blame themselves. It's always someone else's fault isn't it.

 

I don't think so!

 

They might end up as the largest party but landslide? No.

[View From The Top]

The only real winner come May will be apathy and clear evidence of the contempt that politics and politicians are now held in in the UK.

[RedAndWhite91]

I don't think so!

 

They might end up as the largest party but landslide? No.

 

I reckon it might be. I think there'll be a lot of people like me who, when asked who they are voting for will say "Oh I don't know yet" but fully know. Like someone else posted earlier, perhaps those dissatisfied Labour voters from a bygone era won't bother voting?

 

Landslide or no landslide, Tories will win the election.

[badgerx16]

All the candidates are self-serving egotists, who have only two intentions - to better themselves at the public's expense, and play power games with our money and our future.

[bridge too far]

All the candidates are self-serving egotists, who have only two intentions - to better themselves at the public's expense, and play power games with our money and future.

 

You may well be right about many of them but, pray tell, what's the alternative?

 

Most of them start of their parliamentary life with high ideals. How would you suggest that they maintain those?

[badgerx16]

You may well be right about many of them but, pray tell, what's the alternative?

 

Most of them start of their parliamentary life with high ideals. How would you suggest that they maintain those?

Oh, come on Bridge, anybody with any principles wouldn't want to get anywhere near Westminster. The constituency candidate lists are stage managed from party central offices, if you get elected you are nailed into line by the Whips, and any real power in the majority party is vested in a minority cabal around the PM, the full cabinet are cowed into submission by fear of reshuffles; and backbenchers are just cannon fodder, only valued when they have to troop through the lobbies in support of unpopular legislation. They are despised by the civil servants they work with.

As for the electorate; 35% won't turn out, they will find something better to do, like bath the dog or watch paint dry. 40% will already know how they are voting based on party allegiance - they probably won't even read the candidate's name on the ballot paper, let alone learn what they look like. 10% will vote negatively, finding reasons NOT to support one party or another, 7% will vote the way their daily paper tells them, 6% will vote for the party that they think will make them better off, and the remainder will vote for a fringe party or spoil their ballot.

 

As Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of Government,- until you consider the alternatives".

[bridge too far]

Oh, come on Bridge, anybody with any principles wouldn't want to get anywhere near Westminster. The constituency candidate lists are stage managed from party central offices, if you get elected you are nailed into line by the Whips, and any real power in the majority party is vested in a minority cabal around the PM, the full cabinet are cowed into submission by fear of reshuffles; and backbenchers are just cannon fodder, only valued when they have to troop through the lobbies in support of unpopular legislation. They are despised by the civil servants they work with.

As for the electorate; 35% won't turn out, they will find something better to do, like bath the dog or watch paint dry. 40% will already know how they are voting based on party allegiance - they probably won't even read the candidate's name on the ballot paper, let alone learn what they look like. 10% will vote negatively, finding reasons NOT to support one party or another, 7% will vote the way their daily paper tells them, 6% will vote for the party that they think will make them better off, and the remainder will vote for a fringe party or spoil their ballot.

 

As Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of Government,- until you consider the alternatives".

 

No, no - you've misunderstood me. In fact you've sort of reinforced my question with your last line.

 

Let's put it another way - how else are we to be governed if we don't choose from a selection of self-interested, slightly power hungry candidates?

 

BTW I do know some MPs who genuinely do work for the good of their constituents rather than toe the party line. And some do speak out against their leaders too - obviously NOT career politicians because to gainsay the party line effectively puts an end to hopes of higher office.

[Causer]

Ukip 66

Bnp 64

Conservative 60

lib dems 29

Lab 29

Green 26

 

I think the Bnp may have falsified their answers as having read their manifesto they were quite left wing with protectionism and nationalisation common themes.Ukip fair enough I back them at European elections but Conservative at general to get Brown out.

[badgerx16]

No, no - you've misunderstood me. In fact you've sort of reinforced my question with your last line.

 

Let's put it another way - how else are we to be governed if we don't choose from a selection of self-interested, slightly power hungry candidates?

 

BTW I do know some MPs who genuinely do work for the good of their constituents rather than toe the party line. And some do speak out against their leaders too - obviously NOT career politicians because to gainsay the party line effectively puts an end to hopes of higher office.

 

I don't have an answer, I just hold the opinion that the current 'first past the post' system has created the monster we see today - 5 of the last 6 Parliaments have been run by parties elected by, at most, 43% of the electorate yet having majorities of over 60, ( Maggie 144 & 102; Blair 179 167 & 66 ).

In 1983 the Tories got 42% of the vote and 61% of the seats at Westminster. In 1987 it was 42% votes & 58% seats, and in 1992 42% of the vote gained 51% of the seats. When Bliar won in 1997 he gained 63% of the seats with only 43% of the vote, in 2001 it was 40% of votes & 62% of seats, and the last time New Labour won 55% of seats with only 35% of the vote ! And remember, this is the percentage of votes cast, not of the electorate as a whole, voter turnout at the last 2 elections was 59.4% and 61.4%. The biggest turnout since 1974 was 77.7% for the election John Major won in 1992.

PR may not be perfect, but it HAS to be fairer than this.

[bridge too far]

Badger, I agree with you about voter apathy. The old saw says we get the government we deserve so maybe our apathy is to blame for any government of the past 20 or 30 years? We then get apathetic MPs and so we're less inclined to vote for any of them. A vicious circle.

 

In principle I have nothing against PR. I do worry, however, that we'll end up with the same problems as a hung parliament will bring. No clear direction, no long-term planning, just constant bargaining and resultant consensus government. Even David Cameron agrees with me lol

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8602591.stm

[dune]

Unless you reside in a marginal constituency your vote is pointless. There's no point in me personally voting because even in 1997 the Tories won by a landslide.

[bridge too far]

Unless you reside in a marginal constituency your vote is pointless. There's no point in me personally voting because even in 1997 the Tories won by a landslide.

 

If you don't vote, you can't really moan when things don't go the way you want them to, can you?

[dune]

If you don't vote, you can't really moan when things don't go the way you want them to, can you?

 

I'll vote because i believe in voting, but it's still pointless.

[View From The Top]

I'll vote because i believe in voting, but it's still pointless.

 

Which is why the system is broken and why people, increasingly, don't bother voting.

 

I'm in a marginal(ish) seat so it's intersting but all of the neighbouring seats are either true blue or red in tooth & claw.

[badgerx16]

If you don't vote, you can't really moan when things don't go the way you want them to, can you?

Bridge, under the current system my vote will have no effect on which member is elected from my constituency, there are too many willing to vote for the donkey with the blue ribbon. Nonetheless, I will vote - not sure yet which of the three options open to me I will take, ( that is assuming there is a Green candidate to consider ).

Under a PR system I would at least feel like my vote had a chance.

[bridge too far]

Bridge, under the current system my vote will have no effect on which member is elected from my constituency, there are too many willing to vote for the donkey with the blue ribbon. Nonetheless, I will vote - not sure yet which of the three options open to me I will take, ( that is assuming there is a Green candidate to consider ).

Under a PR system I would at least feel like my vote had a chance.

 

Me too - David Cameron, no less And I'll be out on the streets, delivering leaflets for the Labour Party too even though it's a lost cause here, obviously.

 

I'll also vote as it's my constitutional right and women fought long and hard so that I could.

 

But, for all the reasons I outlined earlier, I'm not convinced that PR will deliver a strong government. And that's what's needed, whatever its hue.

[Pugwash]

A government that I voted for drunk on power, three or four years on from a war that could have been prevented. 46 or 47 (I lost count) MPs and ministers resigned/sacked through scandal/corruption in six years of office. A government that then prosecuted it's own people for doing what they'd told them to do in Iraq.

 

2010?

 

No, 1985.

 

Call me an elephant, but I don't forget. And that's why I'll never vote conservative again.

[bug187]

I don't feel stupid about any of my comments. But I certainly am having some second thoughts about posting in this part of the forum now. Anyway, back to watching the game - not a good start either

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Ukip 66

Bnp 64

Conservative 60

lib dems 29

Lab 29

Green 26

 

I think the Bnp may have falsified their answers as having read their manifesto they were quite left wing with protectionism and nationalisation common themes.Ukip fair enough I back them at European elections but Conservative at general to get Brown out.

 

Left wing policies but a strongly held racist beliefs?

 

Where have I seen that before?

[CB Saint]

I get the fairness of a PR voting system, however the net result would be a coalition governement which would give a disportionately greater influence on policy to one of the smaller parties far in excess of their share of the vote. The up side of the first past the post system is that one party invariably gets an absolute majority so are able to implement their manifesto without having to water it down with concessions to minority parties.

[badgerx16]

I get the fairness of a PR voting system, however the net result would be a coalition governement which would give a disportionately greater influence on policy to one of the smaller parties far in excess of their share of the vote. The up side of the first past the post system is that one party invariably gets an absolute majority so are able to implement their manifesto without having to water it down with concessions to minority parties.

The current Labour Govt received less than 22% of the potential total electoral vote at the last election, and has an overall majority of 66 seats. Therefore 78% of the electorate in total, and 65% of those that turned out at the polling stations, DIDN'T vote for them !

[Joensuu]

Lib Dem 75%

Green 71%

Lab 56%

UKIP 41%

BNP 36%

Tory 33%

[Causer]

Left wing policies but a strongly held racist beliefs?

 

Where have I seen that before?

 

Third Reich?

[sperm_john]

UK Independence Party:

63%

Conservative Party:

48%

Labour Party:

34%

 

hmmmmm, am I alone in being one of those people who still havent made up their mind how they are going to vote this election??? The differences between the party's just seem so marginal these days, I dont like the liberals because of their stance on trident, I dont like Labour because I want a change from what we have already got and I dont like the Tory's because they plan cuts in the housing industry (one I am very involved with) ...where does this leave me? UKIP ...wasted vote ...GREEN... No thanks.

[SuperMikey]

Saw an opinion poll yesterday after GB announced the date of the election (6th May), and it surprised me a bit. Can't remember the exact percentages, but it was definitely something along the lines of

 

Conservatives 37%

Labour 33%

Liberal Democrats 19%

 

I would've thought that the Lib Dems would have cracked 20% by now, which is a shame. People can't seem to look past the two main parties. It's a political f*cking see-saw in this country.

 

EDIT: Changed the stats, got the Lib Dem stat wrong.

Edited 7 April, 2010 by SuperMikey

[Gingeletiss]

Saw an opinion poll yesterday after GB announced the date of the election (6th May), and it surprised me a bit. Can't remember the exact percentages, but it was definitely something along the lines of

 

Conservatives 37%

Labour 33%

Liberal Democrats 29%

 

I would've thought that the Lib Dems would have cracked 30% by now, which is a shame. People can't seem to look past the two main parties. It's a political f*cking see-saw in this country.

 

Perhaps that's because their policy's don't sit right with the populace!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I think SuperMikey you might want to chop 10% off the LD.

[The9]

Sorry, but you are wrong. The Race Relations Act defines racial discrimination as beiing actions etc against someone of a particular race or ethnic or national origin. Strangely enough, Sikhs are afforded the status of an ethnic group so discrimination against them breaches two different acts.

 

The definition in the Race Relations Act is "wrong" actually. Ignoring that you're talking about racial discrimination not racism per se, racism is by definition based on race. It can't be based on anything else or it would be called that something else-ism, and there would also be no need for definitions like national identity, xenophobia, ethnicity etc to exist, as they're not all the same thing, despite that being implied by the Race Relations Act meting out the same punishment for all things of that nature under the catch-all.

 

No shock that it adopts the broadest possible definition of racial discrimination given the high likelihood that people would try to challenge a tighter categorisation of their personal motives in court to escape punishment.

 

Hating (for instance) Peruvians might be equally onerous as racism, and based on the usual level of ignorance about the culure, and stereotypes, just as racism is - it might even be justifiable to make a crime from acting out of hatred for characteristics associated with being from a particular country, but it doesn't make "Peruvian" a race, it's still a nationality based on the borders of a state.

 

As for this quiz, it's either badly written, biased towards the minority parties, or just designed to dupe the stupid into thinking they should vote a particular way. Either that or most innernet Saints forum users aren't representative of the electorate (or they're lying).

[benjii]

I shall vote Lib Dem for the simple reason that the Tories will be a distant third here (my "Location" is wrong, by the way) and I obviously want to get rid of Labour.

 

If we had PR, I'm not actually sure who I would vote for (but obviously not Labour).

[The9]

Saw an opinion poll yesterday after GB announced the date of the election (6th May), and it surprised me a bit. Can't remember the exact percentages, but it was definitely something along the lines of

 

Conservatives 37%

Labour 33%

Liberal Democrats 29%

 

I would've thought that the Lib Dems would have cracked 30% by now, which is a shame. People can't seem to look past the two main parties. It's a political f*cking see-saw in this country.

 

It doesn't matter much anyway - being the "third party" means you come second a lot, and as you don't get seats for second place in the "First Past The Post" electoral system a lot of that support actually doesn't count for anything in terms of the number of MPs.

 

It's the main reason why the Lib Dems support Proportional Representation, because they'd get a shedload more MPs using it.

 

In 1983 the SDP/Liberal Alliance got 25% of the vote with Labour getting 27%. Alliance got 3.5% of the seats, Labour got 32% of the seats. Not exactly "representative"...

[Brussels Saint]

Blimey:

 

1, Cons

2, UKIP

3, Lab

4, Lib

5, BNP

6, Green

 

Conservative is accurate as I will vote for them, but surprised at the UKIP score as I'm a foreign lifestyle lover (shows I must still quite enjoy annoying the johnnies though) and surprised at the Green score, as I'm also a tree hugging environmentalist.

 

Thank god for the low BNP score..........I'm an immigrant to Brussels and refuse to integrate (well except for the beer, pubs never closing, 36 days holiday each year, brilliant health service & low cost of living!)

[SNSUN]

I'd never thought of voting for UKIP before, but the survey was overwhelmingly biased towards them. Followed by the Torys.

[John B]

I shall vote Lib Dem for the simple reason that the Tories will be a distant third here (my "Location" is wrong, by the way) and I obviously want to get rid of Labour.

 

If we had PR, I'm not actually sure who I would vote for (but obviously not Labour).

 

Why do you want to get rid of Labour as a matter of interest

 

What do the Tories offer that Labour does not

[Crab Lungs]

BNP, followed by UKIP and Tories. Interesting 'quiz'

 

:-o

[Barry the Badger]

Labour 63%, Conservative 63%.

 

Either I sit exactly in the middle of the political spectrum, or there is no real difference between the two parties, hmmm.

[Barry the Badger]

[Michelle]

Ignoring the BNP, as if I was ever gonna vote it certainly wouldn't be for them, I got Lib Dem and Green joint top. That's two for LD for me now.