UK General Election 2005

[iadom]

Originally Posted by Dave Stones

everyone knows labour will get in again anyway through some fiddle, proportional representation or wahtever it is that gives them more seats per vote? so what's the point?

I guess we can take it from that you are not studying politics then,

[Matth]

Under "survival of the least unfit", New Labour's underachievement and stealth taxation will probably be rated less harshly than the Tories incoherent mumblings - the Lib Dems are NO alternative whatsoever.

The Conservatives got in when people were sick of Labour's mismanagement. Labour got back when they went into meltdown.

I'd like to vote UKIP, as I belive the EU is going down a road we should not follow, but the area was lost from Conservative to Labour in the meltdown (from being a "safe" seat), but recovered by them in the last election, so I'd have to back them instead - under PR, I'd vote UKIP - or any alternative that would be pressuring for the EU to be a co-operation of nation states, rather than a surrender to a superstate. To actually leave the EU would be a last resort, but its an option which must be on the table, which means staying out of EMU - basically, take no step in that cannot be reversed.

Interesting. Conservative leading by a large majority.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Well in my area, in the last council elections, there was a turnout of 27% (or thereabouts). Are you seriously telling me that 73% of the population could not collectively vote for someone else?

Yes, because that 73% would *not* simply "vote for someone else". Their votes would split more or less according to the demographic for your area.

You have the power to turn up and 'spoil' your ballot paper right now. Simply not bothering to show up (as did the majority of the country - bear in mind at the last general election people who voted were in the MINORITY) and then making excuses like 'oh they're all the same' etc etc is apathy on a stick.

Rubbish. It is a *VERY* loud message that nobody is paying attention to at the moment. People have got fed up with politics.

Despite the majority of people being against the war in Iraq, we invaded anyway. Only after Blair realised that he could actually lose votes if he didn't ban fox hunting did he finally do something about it (and then in a pretty cack-handed and incompetant manner). Faced with fuel protests the government seemed to back down, but very little actually changed.

Our political leaders are taking their positions for granted and it is *NOT* possible for us to do anything about it through the ballot box any more.

And if the majority of people in the country are following your example of not voting because you don't like the options, then start your own party that 53% of country will vote for, that's democracy right?

That's sheer nonsense. And just as I can't be bothered to vote in a failing and non-representative system, I can't be bothered to point out the fallacies in that argument.

I would disagree. If a store was selling faulty goods, you don't really have much say in it unless you buy one of the faulty ones.

Rubbish. If a store is selling faulty goods and I hear about it (which I probably would, being a subscriber to Which? Magazine and a viewer of Working Lunch etc) I wouldn't go there.

However your analogy is faulty because political parties are not like high street shops.

If we all lived by your rules, no-one would turn up to vote. If you want to live in a democracy then you have to take part in it.

Oh gods, this is the "if you don't like it go and live somewhere else" argument. It's old, tired and tedious, just like the political parties, and I'm not going to waste time on it or them.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Graham

And, as I mentioned above, unless there's a "none of the above" option, your only choice is to vote for another party (who probably don't represent what your views are anyway) or not to vote at all to show your dislike of the entire process.

You always have the option to spoil your ballot paper, one presumes the number of spoiled papers is taken into consideration when the tallying up is done. I'd think a great number of intentionally spoiled papers would show people dislike of the system/party's!

[punky]

Originally Posted by Diamond

Interesting. Conservative leading by a large majority.

Very. Considering everyone thinks the Tories are "dying". I thought, judging by the media, that the Tories don't stand a chance at the next election, but i'll still vote for them anyway, even though, at the moment, it looks worthless.

It is looking like at the moment, the main opposition parties will be the Lib Dems and Labour. Great. Liberals vs socialists. How can two left wing parties really oppose each other? There is not enough difference.

Why tories anyway? The NHS was got triple its funding since 1997..My dads friend had heart troubles and never got good treatment, especcially because of his age he always had to wait for a specialist. Until 2000 when he suddenly got much better treatment, they actuallly bothered to see him, and he has bbeen in much better health.

But on topic..labour have increased spending, remember a few moths ago there were positive results on the NHS. Police numbers have increased

What have they done that so bad?

[Aragorn]

Apologies if someone has already made this point, but I have voted in almost every local, national and European election since I was 18 (over twenty years) and my democratic voice has only ever been heard in the European PR system. NONE of my local or national votes have ever counted for anything.

I can't remember the last time I was canvassed by anyone other than the Conservatives, and I don't think we have ever had a none-Conservative MP!

I am not surprised that younger voters feel disenchanted by the whole parliamentary system.

Having said that, I will continue to plug away with my useless vote in the vain hope that one day we may get a different voting system.

[iadom]

Originally Posted by Damien

Why tories anyway? The NHS was got triple its funding since 1997..My dads friend had heart troubles and never got good treatment, especcially because of his age he always had to wait for a specialist. Until 2000 when he suddenly got much better treatment, they actuallly bothered to see him, and he has bbeen in much better health.

But on topic..labour have increased spending, remember a few moths ago there were positive results on the NHS. Police numbers have increased

What have they done that so bad?

Over 60 stealth taxes, most of which you will not be paying "yet". £5 billion every year robbed from pension funds. It wouldn't be so bad if the money was spent wisely, however Labour always manage to spend most of it on administration, large increases in paper shifters and nothing at the coal face.

[TheBlueRaja]

So that explains why NOT labour - but it dosent explain why tory?

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, because that 73% would *not* simply "vote for someone else". Their votes would split more or less according to the demographic for your area.

Rubbish. It is a *VERY* loud message that nobody is paying attention to at the moment. People have got fed up with politics.

But you were making the point that non-voters such as yourself were not happy with the options on offer in an election, yet you want change - I think this is hypocritical as you're not prepared to do anything about bringing change to pass.

Not voting sends a message, correctly or otherwise, to politicians that you're not bothered. Spoiling your ballot paper (en masse) sends a message that your not happy. Or as you said before, a box saying words to the effect or 'you're all useless, bring me someone better' would be even better, as government tends to write off spoilt papers as the work of morons and lunitics!

Originally Posted by Graham

Despite the majority of people being against the war in Iraq, we invaded anyway. Only after Blair realised that he could actually lose votes if he didn't ban fox hunting did he finally do something about it (and then in a pretty cack-handed and incompetant manner). Faced with fuel protests the government seemed to back down, but very little actually changed.

Our political leaders are taking their positions for granted and it is *NOT* possible for us to do anything about it through the ballot box any more.

That just simply isn't true. First, I don't think that given the state this country is in, that fox hunting is an election winner. Most people don't like it, sure, but there are far more serious issues that need resolving far higher up the list IMO.

Second, and most important, as you say the majority of people did not agree with invading Iraq - you're right, but you do have power to do something about it. Vote for someone other than Labour next time. Even reducing Blair's majority sends a huge message to Labour that they screwed up, and if you and your all fellow non-voters voted for someone else then Labour would be out.

Originally Posted by Graham

That's sheer nonsense. And just as I can't be bothered to vote in a failing and non-representative system, I can't be bothered to point out the fallacies in that argument.

Oh come on Graham, I expected better of you

Seriously though, I respect your opinion - but I found it really interesting that yesterday you green rep'd me (much appreciated) for quoting Niemoller's 'First they came for the Communists' line. Is this not the same thing? The quote was about a man who chose not to speak up (in this case I'm inferring that speaking up requires voting).

Believe it or not I share your total frustration with the whole political process in this country. The parties and people in them are an utter waste of public funds, they do not adequately represent me or you by the sounds of it. But if we don't vote that situation will only get worse. By keeping politicians on their toes, keeping on kicking them out when they screw up, we will have an evolving system in this country, which will be far more representative of the people that elected them.

Originally Posted by andygrif

But you were making the point that non-voters such as yourself were not happy with the options on offer in an election, yet you want change - I think this is hypocritical as you're not prepared to do anything about bringing change to pass.

Fine, you contribute a few million pounds to my political campaign and I'll be happy to "do something about it"!!!

I don't think that given the state this country is in, that fox hunting is an election winner. Most people don't like it, sure, but there are far more serious issues that need resolving far higher up the list IMO.

Which is why I said Blair did it in a cack-handed manner. He painted himself into a corner to try to grab some votes and then got stuck with the consequences.

Second, and most important, as you say the majority of people did not agree with invading Iraq - you're right, but you do have power to do something about it. Vote for someone other than Labour next time. Even reducing Blair's majority sends a huge message to Labour that they screwed up, and if you and your all fellow non-voters voted for someone else then Labour would be out.

Yes, but then we're stuck with either Michael Howard and the Tories who nobody is really willing to trust, or the Lib Dems who want to dive headlong into Europe despite the fact that it's clear that most of the country doesn't want that.

Of course you can vote for a "minor" party or spoil your ballot paper, but frankly these are equally as pointless.

Seriously though, I respect your opinion - but I found it really interesting that yesterday you green rep'd me (much appreciated) for quoting Niemoller's 'First they came for the Communists' line. Is this not the same thing? The quote was about a man who chose not to speak up (in this case I'm inferring that speaking up requires voting).

I am willing to "speak up" about issues. I have e-mailed my MP on such matters as the introduction of IR51 (the taxation of dividends for small businesses) and the blatant unfairness of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that redefines a child as someone under 18 (instead of 16) and then effectively *backdates* that so that a photo that *was* legal is now *illegal* (a breach of Human Rights law).

However this is not the same as objecting to an unrepresentative system for electing governments that does not reflect the views and opinions of the population of this country.

if we don't vote that situation will only get worse.

Or possibly someone will actually start *doing* something about it.

[andygrif]

Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one mate!

I think it's a chicken and egg situation....

You think it's an unrepresentative system so you don't vote.

I think it's an unrepresenative system becuase people don't vote.

Either of us could be right (or both for that matter!)

[iadom]

£118,00 0 expenses, £57,000 salary. That is the average cost of your MP.

Why does it not surprise me to find out that of the top ten most expensive MP's 9 of them are Labour members, the other was from the SNP. One woman Labour MP claimed £31,000 on postage alone.

[BBKing]

Because there are more Labour MPs than anyone else, and the SNP is strongest in the far North of Scotland, which costs more to get to than, say, Surrey. The postage one was funny though, something like 200 first class letters a day on average.