UK General Election 2010

[Cheese]

Let me express my thoughts on the upcoming election... through the medium of a bushtarion metaphor or two!

1) Why vote for a local MP who is never going to win a seat?

Generally, there are only ever two candidates in the running for the top spot. To vote for the third - fourth - fifth... etc. is pointless and doesn't achieve anything!

Similarly in bushtarion, there are almost always 1-2 top alliances. Quite often you don't want either one of them to win, but you really hate one of them more than the other! So why not vote for the lesser of two evils? It is far more likely to have an impact than flogging a dead horse.

2) Why vote for someone "out of principle" when they're never going to win?

*Cynic mode at maximum!* I'm sorry but at the end of the day, whichever set of politicians get in power will have some element of corruption / deceit / childishness and greed. It doesn't matter if it's Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dems. I've seen local councils in action for all three and they're just as bad as eachother quite frankly

For example, if Twigley, JJ and Martin were all leading top alliances, and you were in the middle class "mid alliances", it wouldn't matter whoever was at the top, you're still going to get raped

3) Vote for change?

Change isn't always good, but it is refreshing, if only for five minutes.

In bushtarion, I would rather different people won each round than the same every time. I would rather Martin won, then Twigley, then Martin... etc. than have Twigley win every round ^^ However, like politics, it doesn't really matter who is the top dog, they are still going to take all of your land and cause you to waste money on gardeners, often without you even realising it!



Just a few random musings xD

PS - Please don't take my analogies too seriously, I just thought they were a bit of fun <3

So you are basically saying you will pick from the 2 that you think have highest chance of winning then pick the one you agree with the most from the 2 even if you agree more with a party that you don't believe will win?
You don't get a medal for picking the winner. It's not the grand national.
What I don't get is why you are helping someone get into power that you don't agree with?

 

[Bruce666]

I'm going to soil my ballot paper intentionally. - That's better.

So you are going to make the effort to go to the polling station just to write crap on your ballot paper. Yeh thumbs up guy! Everyone should be like you.
People like you annoy me... if you don't want to vote don't go simple as, you aint doing anything but being an arsehole by spoiling your ballot paper.

He was just making a funny. He said soil, instead of spoil ;P

BTW: Ugh what's with all the Tory votes... yaaaay let's privatise what little we have left, scrap the "super-tax" on people earning over £150k a year, scrap the "robin hood tax" idea for banks and financial institutions, and increase the lowest-bracket income tax so the rich feel no difference but the poor feel the pinch

azzer some of us hope too be earning 150k plus in the future

and cheese i do agree with the conservatives

 

[Cheese]

I'm going to soil my ballot paper intentionally. - That's better.

So you are going to make the effort to go to the polling station just to write crap on your ballot paper. Yeh thumbs up guy! Everyone should be like you.
People like you annoy me... if you don't want to vote don't go simple as, you aint doing anything but being an arsehole by spoiling your ballot paper.

He was just making a funny. He said soil, instead of spoil ;P

BTW: Ugh what's with all the Tory votes... yaaaay let's privatise what little we have left, scrap the "super-tax" on people earning over £150k a year, scrap the "robin hood tax" idea for banks and financial institutions, and increase the lowest-bracket income tax so the rich feel no difference but the poor feel the pinch

azzer some of us hope too be earning 150k plus in the future

and cheese i do agree with the conservatives

Then by all means vote them

 

[Azzer]

Max - terrible attitude. I'm just going to re-paste something I typed up on Newsbeat's facebook page yesterday in reply to one of their politics related things (I'm not sure if it's coincidence Cheese used the grand national mention above or not!);

"Anyone that says there's no point voting for anyone other than Conservative or Labour isn't thinking things through - you don't get an "I win!" badge, or get told "Well done!" if you 'pick the winner'. Saying "I'm voting Tories because I don't want Labour in and Tories are the only other party to stand a chance" is doing exactly that - trying to 'back the winner' and not doing what you should be doing - voting for the party you most support or agree with. Don't be obsessed about picking the winner, this isn't the grand national. Use your voice wisely - vote for the person, or party, who's principles most match your own. Also remember that even if the party you voted for doesn't outright "win" - every seat they do manage to get is extra power they have to influence things to a way you agree with."

Don't be a fool and think this is just a game where the aim is to pick the winner. This is your country. Vote for the party or the candidate you must agree with and support... nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Darryl]

I see your point, Azzer, and it's obviously foolish to just "vote for the winner", but I think there's a valid argument for tactical voting.

As an example, if it were the case that in my constituency, it was a really tight call between the the Evil Scumbag Racist Party and Just An MP For The Expenses, lolz Party, with my preferred party being a fringe party, that's not expecting many seats, certainly not in my area, I' vote for the one I dislike the least. Not because I want to "vote for the winning team", and don't think that my preferred candidate will win, but because I'd really hate for the alternative to get in.

If the candidate that you'd most like to win doesn't have any hope of winning the seat, I'd rather use my vote to vote "against" a party that I'd hate to see in. I see that as a valid use of a vote. Though, in my case, my preferred candidate is a member of a fringe party, and I view all of the main candidates with equal disdain, so I'll just vote for the candidate I'd most like to win, rather than using my vote as above.

What I don't get is why you are helping someone get into power that you don't agree with?

Perhaps because the voter disagrees with their policies less than they disagree with the other potential winning candidate. It might not be the party that the voter would select if he were the single constituent who could select any party he liked to win, without allowing others to have a say, but if the realistic choice is between two others, without a hope in hell for their favourite candidate, why not vote for the one that you'd least dislike to see in power?

 

[Max]

Max - terrible attitude. I'm just going to re-paste something I typed up on Newsbeat's facebook page yesterday in reply to one of their politics related things (I'm not sure if it's coincidence Cheese used the grand national mention above or not!);

"Anyone that says there's no point voting for anyone other than Conservative or Labour isn't thinking things through - you don't get an "I win!" badge, or get told "Well done!" if you 'pick the winner'. Saying "I'm voting Tories because I don't want Labour in and Tories are the only other party to stand a chance" is doing exactly that - trying to 'back the winner' and not doing what you should be doing - voting for the party you most support or agree with. Don't be obsessed about picking the winner, this isn't the grand national. Use your voice wisely - vote for the person, or party, who's principles most match your own. Also remember that even if the party you voted for doesn't outright "win" - every seat they do manage to get is extra power they have to influence things to a way you agree with."

Don't be a fool and think this is just a game where the aim is to pick the winner. This is your country. Vote for the party or the candidate you must agree with and support... nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry Azzer, you are quite right in that I did overexaggerate my opinions somewhat by my analogies!

Actually, I am more of a tactical voting chap, similar to Daryl's first comments. My personal argument isn't even for the leader of the country, but rather the local MPs, since they are who we actually vote for.

For example, I know Kingston just outside London has a Liberal Democrat MP called Susan Kramer, who I also know rigs her own "community consultations" with planted questions and doesn't give two figs for anyone else's opinions. The only other party in the running is the conservatives.

Now if hypothetically I preferred labours policies, it wouldn't matter because they would never get close to winning the seat. So if I really didn't want Susan Kramer, I would vote conservatives to get her out. It is quite possible that they won't be perfect, but I would rather oust the certain bad egg!

 

[Twigley]

Twigley for Prime Minister ? :O

 

[Bruce666]

Twigley for Prime Minister ? :O

thats lolworthy although i think Jeremy Clarkson for prime minister so get rid of speed limits

 

[Treedude]

I see your point, Azzer, and it's obviously foolish to just "vote for the winner", but I think there's a valid argument for tactical voting.

You want a good 'real life' example of that just look at Scotland, it's a fairly common opinion to vote for Labour just because they are the only party who can realistically win over the Conservatives (who are not the most popular in Scotland shall we say)

Anyway my take on the whole election thing is that essentially the parties are all the same when it boils down to it, let's be honest politicians are just people and you get good and bad in all the parties. Personally I usually lean more towards Lib Dem but I am unsure how I will vote this year and am eagerley awaiting the first of the Leader Debates (tonight 8.30, ITV1) to see if any them can sway me. Aside from being swayed by the debates I'm generally quite excited about them as it's a new thing and I think it could make or break any of the 3 parties campaigns. Think Clegg has more to gain though, realistically if he makes a gaff it's not going to make that much difference, but if Cameron or Brown make one then it's a different story

Just hoping that there is actual debating on the issues rather than the 3 of them just trying to discredit each other, but as I say, am eagerley awaiting the first of the debates

 

[Illumination]

How are the debates going? Any new insight? Predictions based on polls etc..?

 

[Charlie_B]

I haven't - and won't - watch such facile PR tripe, but the media coverage suggests that the Lib Dems, who for years have been 'the third party' with some seats but little influence, have experienced a large surge following the debate and are looking like being a serious player for once. It must have been pretty easy point scoring for Nick Clegg - all he had to do was stand there and say "Hey! I'm not a Tory or Labour!".

It'd be interesting to see a voting intentions poll broken down by age. I'm very willing to bet that - like in our mini poll here - the Tories have a significant portion of their votes from people too young to remember the last time they were in power.

I'd like to see the Lib Dems take a lot of Tory seats and Labour be stung badly, leading to an uprising among Labour ranks and a reshuffle prompting a return to traditional Labour values (and the castration of people like Mandelson). The homogonisation of the leading political parties has helped none of them, and pushed some otherwise sane people into seeking refuge in the unpalatable extremes of the system. Respectable left wing politics needs to return to the mainstream, and I wouldn't mind if a hung parliament or possibly even Lib Dem victory is the catalyst needed to see this happen. Just not the Tories.

 

[atsanjose]

*homogenisation

 

[Azzer]

Charlie actually speaks sense for once!

 

[Steve_God]

I haven't - and won't - watch such facile PR tripe, but the media coverage suggests that the Lib Dems, who for years have been 'the third party' with some seats but little influence, have experienced a large surge following the debate and are looking like being a serious player for once. It must have been pretty easy point scoring for Nick Clegg - all he had to do was stand there and say "Hey! I'm not a Tory or Labour!".

Correct!
Tories and Labour have been spending FAR too much time this year (on the TV debates, through all the leaflets they put through my door, and all the billboards plastered around the town I live in) on slagging each other off for their faults!
In fairness, they're doing well at showing how bad each other are, but they're forgetting the Lib Dems, and in doing so, they're not giving the simple facts of their policies on various areas, whereas the Lib Dems are and it's making them seem the reasonable choice!
Maybe they're both expecting it to be a hung parliament and both want to be the one that the Lid Dems will team up with... who knows!

 

[Dark_Angel]

Interesting

Dear Joseph,

With the election campaign hotting up, should 38 Degrees run a campaign to stand up for the idea of a hung parliament? Take 30 seconds to vote here:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/hung-parliament

There are suddenly lots of scare stories in the media about what a hung parliament would mean. The Sun newspaper is warning it's a "recipe for political corruption and paralysis". [1] Bankers are claiming it would wreck the economy. [2] Threats like these could bully voters into backing parties they don't really want to win.

There are some voices in favour of a hung parliament. But the critics have more power and resources, and there's a risk the scare stories might take root. Lots of 38 Degrees members are suggesting we run a campaign to stand up for our right to decide. We could run ads in papers or on the radio, produce fact sheets and challenge scaremongers in the press.

Help decide what we do - should 38 Degrees run a campaign to stand up for the idea of a hung parliament? Take 30 seconds to vote here:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/hung-parliament

A hung parliament is where no one party wins the election outright - so parliament is balanced and politicians have to work together. Each of the two main parties want to win, so they've got every reason to exaggerate the risks. But a hung parliament could be our best bet for making real changes to how politics works. It would force an end to "them or us", two-party politics and show politicians of all parties that business as usual isn't working. It could boost our chances of getting a government that listens.

Polls suggest lots of us would prefer a hung parliament to either a Labour or a Tory win. [3] Many of us feel disappointed with all the options available, and want to see bigger changes to politics. Many believe a hung parliament is a chance to force politicians to accept the need to change.

Do you agree a hung parliament could be a big opportunity to make change happen? Vote here: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/hung-parliament

There are over 125,000 of us involved in 38 Degrees. We know that when we work together, we can shift how politics works. By working together before we've made sure the Iraq Inquiry is in public, we've forced all the parties to accept the need for a recall law, we've persuaded the chancellor to tax bankers' bonuses, and we've put BBC bosses on the defensive about cuts to valuable services. Now, if we want to, we can bust the myths around a hung parliament. Please help decide if we should do this together.

Say what you think in 30 seconds by clicking here:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/hung-parliament


Thanks for getting involved,

David, Hannah, Johnny, Nina and the 38 Degrees team

 

[Dax]

Those people are the people I want running the watchdog on our politics and our banks. I'm fed up of the media and major parties, and pretty much every negative contributor to our recession, telling us what will happen if we do what we want to do.
IMO - **** them all. This country has been run by fear and spin for far too long.

 

[Charlie_B]

What an irritating email. If they're so against current politics why do they write such rhetoric-filled wishy-washy political nonsense? It's a great rallying call in support of hung parliaments, without bothering to go into anything as dangerous as facts, which would invariably jeopardize their chances. I mean, they're basically saying "Give us your personal details and we promise we'll tell you some cool stuff" (ie "busting the myths"). Er, how about you give us some facts first and people will decide if they agree? Edit: I've just discovered that if you do fill in their form it takes you straight through to a GIVE US MONEY page. Say no more.

Vote for change! People power! Lets show them politicians! Bullshit!

 

[Dark_Angel]

They're a not-for-profit org, Charlie, though I can see where you're coming from.

I've a fair amount of respect for the organisation; the recently-rushed-through Digital Economy Bill is a shocking reminder the public have no say on what happens in Britain (38 degrees helped facilitate 20,000 people e-mail their local MP to voice their concern this bill was to be rushed through without proper scrutiny) They also raised £20k to run advertisements in major newspapers, to raise awareness. Pretty much every MP received e-mails, yet the bill received minimal opposition (from the Lib Dems, who are looking for votes anywhere they can) So the bill is still going through. Though they failed, this is an excellent example of what should be happening more often - The public telling MPs, who are after all supposed to listen to us and act on our behalf, what it is we want. In this case all we wanted was for them to do their jobs and debate this particular bill properly, and even this proved too much to ask. Which is why I likely won't vote in the next election, even if the party you want to win wins, they still don't give a flying toss what it is you want. They are, for the most part, ignorant elitists who are convinced they know what is best ("best" being defined by groups like the British Phonographic Industry, who actually drafted clauses for the DEB.. tsk)

Albeit that e-mail does not highlight the possible dangers of a hung parliament, which isn't ideal, but their intentions aren't malicious imo.

 

[Weeble]

Still confused as to who to vote for?

 

[Dimitar]

ty for share