47 replies to this topic

[Laner]

Well?

[BtC]

With our FPTP electoral system, they've not a cat in hell's chance. Their support is too concentrated in specific parts of certain towns/cities. They'll win in individual council wards, but never in a Parliamentary constituency.

Of course, an electoral system based on PR might produce a different outcome.

[tony_p]

People have needed a "none of the above" box on the ballot paper for years. If they were to introduce that then I'd be happy to go to the ballot station and tick that box instead of having to write "none of these idiots" above the three main parties each May.

I don't think they will get an mp but we can't rule it out since people don't have the NOTA option that I've just pointed out. UKIP seems to have a better chance in the rural south-west. However, it's a long time away so we'll have to wait and see. Should the BNP get an mp there'll be fighting in the streets and lets hope they burn down the offices of the c*** on that black day in history.

[Alan]

Not the slightest chance of a BNP MP

A more interesting, and revealing, poll would be "which party do you intend to vote for if the General Election were to be called this year?"

After 20 years of voting Labour there's no way I'll support the duplicitous bastards who put power ahead of principle and I've no intention of wasting my vote by copping out and voting LibDem. Nope when it comes to which ex-public schoolboy gets my support it's Conservative by a country mile

Edited to change PM to MP!

Edited by Alan, 20 October 2006 - 01:53 PM.

[BtC]

I hope the Green Party have a candidate, failing that I hope The Left have someone standing (will it be the People's Front of Judea or The Judean Peoples' Front though?) or I'll be left with no protest option to vote for.

Any temptation I might have to vote for Gordon Brown quickly vanishes when I remember I'm now in St Helens South and have that c*** Woodward as an MP. I'd vote for Dave Watts, mind.

[donkey o'tay]

I agree, I wouldn't vote for Woodward. Luckily my option is Dave Watts.

The Poll quetsion on this thread is very leading. I know it's a bit of fun but it might have been more interesting if it was more balanced.

If it's a hung parliament I expect Blair to by resurrected as the saviour, Ramsey MacDonald like.

[Dave D]

We need a totally new set up the two old schools have passed their sell by date just look at the inequalities that are now common place through Blairs meddling with the constitution we are denied drugs that Scots get and we are paying for the bloody stuff. The state of our pensions in ruins through Browns Daylight robbery They crucified a bloke called Maxwell for doing nowhere near the damage hes done.The other lot are no better with what they are proposing Green taxes what a load of bollocks do they think for one minute the average bloke in the street is concerned about green issues ?? We all jump in our cars for even the shortest journey only use public transport if we cant afford a car go on two or three holidays abroad by air because they are cheaper than staying at home are the green issues given a thought then ??? I doubt if it even comes into question.

[Laner]

donkey o, on Oct 20 2006, 03:43 PM, said:

I agree, I wouldn't vote for Woodward. Luckily my option is Dave Watts.

The Poll quetsion on this thread is very leading. I know it's a bit of fun but it might have been more interesting if it was more balanced.

If it's a hung parliament I expect Blair to by resurrected as the saviour, Ramsey MacDonald like.

How is it leading?? Do you think there will be a BNP MP yes or no? Now if I would have said do you agree that there will be a BNP MP after the next election, yes or no, that would be leading.

[Ledi]

What we need is the abolition of party politics, in economics it'd be known as a cartel and strictly forbidden, if everyone were independant then they'd be left to themselves on how to vote on issues such as Iraq and Foundation Hospitals. Without the whip common sense would be prevalent and local people would be local MPs resulting in local issues occupying a greater level of thought. This way those with greatest level of skill would be in charge, not just those most willing to kiss the most arse. The problem of course, is picking a Prime Minister, back in the day of independant MPs the Monarch used to choose, can't really see that being a viable option anymore though, perhaps a secret ballot of MPs? I say secret as to avoid the MPs being split into known camps, but i'm sure there are better suggestions.

Oh and it is ridiculous to think BNP will have an MP at the election.

[donkey o'tay]

Laner, on Oct 20 2006, 05:41 PM, said:

How is it leading?? Do you think there will be a BNP MP yes or no? Now if I would have said do you agree that there will be a BNP MP after the next election, yes or no, that would be leading.

The lead is in the second part - "No, the British public still have a little common sense" That insinuates that anyone ticking yes thinks the British don't have common sense. If the tickee is British s/he is then lead into only one common sense answer.

[ellie ellins]

Alan, on Oct 20 2006, 02:52 PM, said:

Not the slightest chance of a BNP MP

A more interesting, and revealing, poll would be "which party do you intend to vote for if the General Election were to be called this year?"

After 20 years of voting Labour there's no way I'll support the duplicitous bastards who put power ahead of principle and I've no intention of wasting my vote by copping out and voting LibDem. Nope when it comes to which ex-public schoolboy gets my support it's Conservative by a country mile

Edited to change PM to MP!



I know you are a principled voter Alan but what makes you turncoat so easily? Is it a protest vote or do you really think that Conservatives will bring a change that will suit you. If I thought that they could stop the nanny state mentality I might even consider them myself and I think if they were to pursue this avenue they would gain many votes. I get sick everyday when I watch the news and its not news - it hectoring advice about diet and health. I want news. I want to know about how they deceive us and hw they are in an administration that is so controlled that they cannot be infiltrated. As long as the media keep us worrying about health issues and crime then we will never get an angle on the manipulative ways of government. I cannot believe a Tory administration would be any different - in fact I often wonder if they would be worse. I may be wrong and if a Tory government is elected then I hope that they do come out to defend the freedom of the individual. I am just grasping at straws now for it seems ridiculous to assume that there is such a thing as conviction politics anymore, unless of course you vote Socialist Worker.

s*** bad use of quotes there I think

[splus]

Bad use of the Quoting function! Please read the Quoting Guidelines.

[BtC]

Freedom of the individual?

Never.

I don't see the current trend for advice on how to eat, how to use energy, how to fart properly as a bad thing. In fact I expect it. Nobody's being forced to eat only muesli. To use your own little bugbear, schools are providing healthy food because they're a public service. Kids can go home after school and pig out on pure lard if they and their parents so wish.

But there are ways in which this government is nannying people. Drugs for one. I enjoy certain drugs, I've never harmed anyone under their influence (but have when pissed). Yet I'm prevented from legally enjoying them. The nanny state.

Seatbelts. I'd wear my seatbelt whether I had to or not. But they're compulsory. Nanny state.

Remember beef on the bone? Banned. We were told the reasons that it may f*** us up, yet we weren't allowed to make our own choice. Nanny state.

Porn. I like porn. I can access all sorts on the web and it pisses the government off. They try to make laws outlawing certain practices between consenting adults. I can't go into Blockbuster and rent something showing full penetrative sex, let alone multiple hole usage. Nanny state.

Smoking. Instead of allowing a minority of pubs and other establishments to carry on allowing smoking, there;s to be a blanket ban. Why? Nanny f***ing state.

Mercy killings. A terminally ill person in constant pain and too feeble to killthemselves wants help to do it. No, no, no. Nanny state.

And it's the conservative, often church-going, busy-body, Daily Mail-reading, 'outraged of Tonbridge Wells' types who pull the f***ing strings.

I couldn't give a toss if the government explains to me why eating a fat-dripping piece of reconstituted chicken arse is bad for me. I'm glad they do. I can them make an informed choice. But there is a nanny state and largely it hasn't come about from the pen of this government (much as I spit on it for being generally a bunch of c***s, and smoking aside), but it's a legacy from our puritannical recent past, which was itself a by-product of the industrial age and the need to keep the masses compliant and working hard without the distractions of things that were actually fun. In fact, many of actions of this governmnt have relaxed some of the fuckwittedly pious laws of this land - licencing laws, age of consent for homosexuals, and other stuff I know they've done but can't be arsed thinking of right now.

[Ledi]

I thought the Puritans left on the Mayflower? And you chastise laws as pious when they were past generations ago, they lived in a very different world, and as such their laws reflected this. Like Sunday openings for shops, I personally would like every shop open on a Sunday, but 100 years ago i'd have probably be flogged for merely mentioning the prospect. I don't like the idea of a nanny state, but i'm not bothered about anything just yet. I think the most intrusive is the blanket smoking ban, but as a non-smoker i'm actually looking forward to the first time when I have to put on my clothes from the night before and not gag at the smell of them. And while I was only young when beef on the bone was banned I would hazard a guess at the ban being because of a fear that unscrupulous chefs and restaurentuers would take advantage at the cut price and simply take it off the bone prior to serving.

[Alan]

Ellie said:



"I know you are a principled voter Alan but what makes you turncoat so easily? Is it a protest vote or do you really think that Conservatives will bring a change that will suit you. If I thought that they could stop the nanny state mentality I might even consider them myself and I think if they were to pursue this avenue they would gain many votes. I get sick everyday when I watch the news and its not news - it hectoring advice about diet and health. I want news. I want to know about how they deceive us and hw they are in an administration that is so controlled that they cannot be infiltrated. As long as the media keep us worrying about health issues and crime then we will never get an angle on the manipulative ways of government. I cannot believe a Tory administration would be any different - in fact I often wonder if they would be worse. I may be wrong and if a Tory government is elected then I hope that they do come out to defend the freedom of the individual. I am just grasping at straws now for it seems ridiculous to assume that there is such a thing as conviction politics anymore, unless of course you vote Socialist Worker."



Several points:



1) "Turncoat" implies a change of priorities or principles. I don't think I fall into that category but I do think the two main political parties do in their haste to occupy the same right/centrist ground. I think that over the last twenty years it's become a case of power before principles

2) Labour used to champion the working classes, nationalisation and public services. It was generally a party dedicated to equality, pacifism and wealth redistribution.

3) Conservative as its name suggests was in favour of the retention of status quo, low taxation, private enterprise and relatively minor state intervention

4) It was thus easy to pick which party to support as generally one or the other championed your view on life and personal principles. Political alignment was straightforward.

Today it's become a case of which set of leadership do you least distrust.

Given Labour's recent record of lying to us in blind support of a war desired for all the wrong reasons by a US leader now widely discredited in his own country, serial sleaze at Cabinet level, totally lightweight appointments to the foreign office in Robin Cook and then Margaret Beckett. the retention of the buffoon Prescott, the massive growth in taxation (and its blatant misappropriation in the NHS) and the introduction of financial conditions that are starting to deter youngsters from further education, why should I vote Labour?

If you really think about it the only thing that the Labour party has tried to do in the last three governments that was vaguely championing the common man was to spend an inordinate of parliamentary time on totally failing to stop fox hunting with dogs. Oh how the toffs in the shire counties giggle at this government

Then there's the utter hypocricy of getting worked up about North Korea exploding a primitive nuclear bomb when the biggest building project in the country is taking place in total secrecy at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in deepest Berkshire to develop new weapons to replace our ageing existing nuclear arsenal.

Turncoat me? I think not.