I actually think that the more people get disillusioned with politics, the more likely they are to treat the general election as what it really is. You don't vote for a government to run the country, you vote for an MP to represent your constituency in Parliament. Ever the idealist, I'd love to see a future whereby more and more people elect MPs on the basis of their individual ideas and policies and we dismantle an over-simplistic divisive party system.
Never going to happen and the best I can hope for is a succession of Governments with small majorities so that they stop taking success in every vote for granted and start having to persuade Parliament of the benefits of their proposals.
Given that Labour are going to run the country anyway, I don't see any flaw in voting for a local MP that you think will represent your area well. In Lincolnshire particularly, voting for Government yes-men is a bad thing. The Tory MP's who wanted advancement in the party were more than happy to volunteer Lincolnshire as dumping ground for all manner of things; nuclear waste at Fulbeck, BSE incinerators near Louth...
Cant believe I missed this -
Author: Smiley (---.l3.c5.dsl.pol.co.uk)
Date: 04-13-05 17:19
Just that i could do with a bit of crack at the moment :oO
Mykle, your flirting has taken a rather alarming turn towards the more direct approach...
*fans self with tory manifesto*
*rips up tory mankyfesto and gives Liana a slap*
I disagree about who you vote for emily, one has to take a broader view and vote for the policies of the party rather than the individual
Bully no? He cleared up the Doctrine of the Church. He simply clarified the theological validity of these guys and they were indeed wrong. They were free to continue teaching so long as they didn't use the Church as a publicity booth at a polling station. That is not what the Church is for and we have the right not to degrade the Church in this way.
For those who don't know..
From wikipedia..
In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian theology (usually Roman Catholic) and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice and human rights. Due to the controversial nature of these topics, their place within the Church and the extent to which Church officials should uphold them have been a matter of corresponding controversy. Some of its followers add Marxist concepts and supported Sandinism.
Liberation theology focuses on Jesus as a liberator. Emphasis is placed on those parts of the Bible where Jesus' mission is described in terms of liberation, and as a bringer of justice. This is interpreted as a call to arms (sometimes literally) to carry out this mission of justice - an activist interpretation which contrasts with the passivist interpretation of Jesus as Redeemer, which leaves devout Christians as passive acceptors of divine redemption and of the earthly status quo.
A distinguishing characteristic of liberation theologians is that they usually do not teach in universities and seminaries; instead, they tend to have much more contact with the poor, and interpret scripture partly based on their experiences in this context.
Although liberation theology is partially compatible with Catholic social teaching as expressed in official statements, it has been rejected by the Vatican based on several important points, such as the doctrine of perpetual class struggle. Pope John Paul II largely put an end to official support for liberation theology among the Catholic Church's hierarchy by his statement in January 1979, on a visit to Mexico, that "this conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church's teachings." However, it retains a degree of support, especially among the laity and individual priests. And indeed the Pope himself acknowledged that Marxism contained within it a "kernel of truth" about the exploitative nature of capitalism.
As for Jesus being a socialist - I love the words from JC Superstar which seem to sum up Christ's attitude quite well. Judas is complaining about all the poor that could have been fed for the value of the oil that had been used to anoint Christ's feet: Christ sings "There will be poor always, pathetically struggling - look at the good things you've got."
That's an opinion that you are entitled to have.
However, unless you live in a constituency where there is a tie between the candidates you are mathematically wasting your time voting. Your vote only has an impact on the outcome in the statistically unlikely event that if you hadn't voted the result would be an exact tie for first place.
Given that, it really doesn't matter a stuff who you vote for. And whatever rationale you choose to use to delude yourself that 'my vote makes a difference' is as valid as anyone elses.
I don't vote for anyone and I never will. Unless I happen to find myself in a position like those Florida voters in the Bush Gore campaign where the margins were slight and the outcome of that local vote determined the outcome of the national election. Then it's worth doing.
Have not read all this thread so sorry if I'm repeating what anyone else has said but it seems to me that tactical voting is a non-starter. Sure, it keeps the tories out but what does that achieve? A huge majority for Labour, based upon the last election result, and a govenment that can do pretty much as it pleases.
I wouldn't mind so much if, as a result of tactical voting, the lib-dems became the second stongest party but they didn't. They gained a few seats ... labour gained a huge number and became the party so many of you now seem to hate (whilst hating the tories even more so). But, that's the paradox, you need a strong opposition to make democracy work and all you are doing by voting tactically is voting in president-I-can-do-what-the-fuck-I-like blair.
Get a grip!
Speaking of democracy, the last turnout was 60% of the electorate.
40% couldn't give a shit.
Of the 60%, 40% voted labour. So, 24% of the country rules the rest of us (it's roughly the same whichever party wins the election).
We are, and always have been, ruled by a minority of shifty, power-crazed w.ankers. Why don't you all, for once, set aside your petty, out-dated idealogicies and vote Independant or for the party that is likely to come last in your constituency.
That might, just, send a message.
Otherwise, vote for the main three, but don't blame people like me when it all goes wrong.
"I don't vote for anyone and I never will. Unless I happen to find myself in a position like those Florida voters in the Bush Gore campaign where the margins were slight and the outcome of that local vote determined the outcome of the national election. Then it's worth doing."
Yes but Andrew... if everyone else were to adopt the same position....
At least, I was going to say the above... but I see where you are coming from. Not casting a vote (if enough people feel and do the same) can eventually send an effective message that reform in our political sysytem is overdue... in the mean time you may allow in governments that are less of what you want, but hey, if you think they are all about the same anyway (hence the reason for your abstaining in the first place) then it does not matter who comes in, does it?
I think on balance, it is still wiser to select the one that takes you a bit in the direction you want... always hoping that someone radical will emerge from one of the parties. The British are a staid lot however, will they recognise hime or her when they come along? I agree this two party system sucks, maybe it is time for a proportional representation system after all, but one with strong executive powers to make decisions when the need arises.
Well a profound moment in my spiritual journey was the first time I heard Jason Donovan's commercial re-release of "Any dream will do" from Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Joseph".
Do you know, Gerry, I nearly put in quotation marks "But if everyone else were to do the same"
I'd quite like large numbers of people to do the same. I think it is only through very very poor turnouts that we'll ever get decent reform of the electoral system and of the way politicians operate. For example, a very low popular vote for the Conservatives might finally convince them that being 'nasty' is never going to triumph. A very low popular vote for Labour that allows them to win the election may well get the message through that we actually want services to improve, rather than just 'deliver choices'
Last time, Labour got into government with a huge majority on about a fifth of those entitled to vote actually supporting them. I'm hoping for a turnout of around 40% this time - I'm not apathetic, just believe that as we don't have a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper, not voting is the only way to register a general dissatisfaction with what is on offer.
Once you've got 60% of the electorate not voting, someone smart will finally realise that the party who taps into that sector of the electorate will win the next election and can start addressing that dissatisfaction.
See the even today, the rumbuctious lot on here would rather spend hours to be with each other virtually rather than go and engage with their neighbours 'down the local'.
Gerry, that's an unfortunate comment. My neighbour is an aggressive, loud, socially inept woman who leaves her children roaming the streets 'til midnight (they're 4 annd 6). So yes, I'd rather engage with my best mate who lives, sadly, as you know, 1000 miles away, than her. You said you were going to rein this patronising online personality of yours in. You not started yet? Some people cannot live in communities of their own choosing. I would not choose to live here, had I a choice.
'I closed my eyes, drew back the curtain, (ooh,ooh)
To see for certain, what I thought I knew.'
Now why would you close your eyes to draw back a curtain, to see something for certain?
Yeah, that Tim Rice has got it all sorted.
Emma,
I'm coming back to this, as you mentionned it at the live event.
In terms of the question of entryism, I don't really know although I've got a few ideas.
I'm not necessarily saying that the ex-RCPs aren't entryists, though, I'm saying that they aren't left-wing.
They promote an extreme and, on some issues, extremely perverse version of right-wing libertarianism.
"so how can you move from Revolutionary Communism and Trotskyism and educate your members with the writings of Marx and end up on the 'nihilistic libertarian right'?"
I'd say around 50% of people, possibly more, of those who start off being very left-wing end up being very right-wing.
Several of Mrs Thatcher's key economic advisers were former Communists.
The Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens started his political life in the SWP (or whatever it was called in those days).
Peter Mandelson, Alan Milburn, Jack Straw, Stephen Byers and John Reid, to name but five very right-wing New Labour cabinet ministers, started out as either Communists or Trotskyists.
>> ...Of the 60%, 40% voted labour. So, 24% of the country rules the rest of us ... <<
That isn't really correct Colin. The 40% that you say don't give a shit do in fact give a shit. Their feelings about the current government are so strong they vote by not voting.
Every single voter counts no matter what they do; vote positive, vote negative, withhold approval, whatever, they ALL count.
Unless the winning majority is very small, forcing the government to compromise at every turn to pass legislation, or has to hang on by a single figure overall majority, the elected party will disregard the 'message' you hope for and carry on as if they won every seat. They will know they have three years to do as they like and one to bribe the electorate before they have to stand again. It isn't hard.
Protest votes rarely if ever work.
Yeah, some guy did that in America, didn't he?
Funny little bloke, always getting his words mixed up, got the biggest vote of any President ever.
Maybe our politicians should try and be more like him?
funny thing just happened...
just got a call on my mobile from my hippie, greasyhaired, socialist brother who invited me on an anti capitalist march in London. I agreed not to be a capitalist on Sunday as it is "a good day out".
He's made his placard - in his words - stressing the importance of organic farming.
What should I put on mine given that if I put what i really feel I won't live!
What with Bush being re-elected and now almost certainly Blair - it leaves me to muse on the famous claim that democracy gives you more choice: why is it - that dickhead 'B' always wins because they can't find a credible dickhead 'A'? Ford offered more choice in colour for his early model "T".
[%sig%]
OK - I shall be voting Labour because I like my local MP - he voted against the war and he's a good man. If he was unremittingly New labour then I would probably vote Green or Lib Dem in a bid to get a hung Parliament. I think that the best possible outcome of this election would be a Lib/lab pact - then we'd get proportional representation and people could once more vote for who they wanted - and then end up with a fudge.
so, if I lived in a constituency where a vote away from labour would make a difference then I'd use it.
The two main things are:
1. Use your vote - even if it's just to spoil your ballot paper. If 20% of the population did this then the voting system would change.
2. Keep the Tories out. This lot have their faults - and plenty of them - but they are angels compared to that festering, foul bunch.
Hox: It's ten items or fewer. You wouldn't say "I want fewer soup than this" as the singular? now would you? I think we should rail against all our supermarkets and tell them that their signs are grammatically incorrect.
No worries. I was merely renmarking that I think that it is inevitable that the internet will foster new kinds of communities which will eventually evolve into physical ones, with people choosing to live together if they can...
I was not saying people 'should' talk to their neighboours... I have very little in common with mine for example, but am lucky in that we are all pretty civil around here.
Thanks for more on this David...if I come across anything else interesting on the issue I'll email you...this has been interesting. I'm amazed how much media space Furedi gets - such as over his book 'Paranoid Parenting' - I find everything he writes to follow the same old script but with a new gloss. Likewise, once you've read something like 'spiked' a few times, you could take any news story and put their spin on without much effort.
Just listening to Howard on the telly: "Had the Asylum system been properly by Labour then Bourgass, the convicted terrorist/murderer, would not have been able to commit his crimes etc'
Makes me laugh. I think he is consigning the Conservatives to at least a further 10 years in the wilderness with this silly campaign.
I think the majority of Brits people may have genuine concerns about the state of the current asylum system, immigration, crime etc and they rightly ought to be beating up the government up about it but surely most have outgrown that sort of silly oversimplification of a complex issue. It is treating the public stupidly, and they are not that stupid. Surely.
Pages