So Who Do We Vote For Now?

Arthur Pendragon (Independent) normally stands in our constituency. He claims to be the re-incarnation of King Arthur and wants it to be legal to carry Excalibur around with him.

He once polled more votes than the Tory candidate in a local election

There's always the Monster Raving Looney Party of course.

Oh that's the Tory Party isn't it...

I would've thought a period of hung parliament, uneasy coalitions and slow movement, policy-wise, would be beneficial for the country.

I agree that all the parties have something objectionable about them and although Labour, whatever its "newness" (how long does it take for this "new" to become "old" I wonder? It's already been a lifetime for a large number of children) is perhaps where my political and fiscal sympathies lie, I WILL NOT vote for Blair, a man who orchestrated the British involvement in the Iraq war. He was wrong on so many practical levels - even if you agree with the aims - and yet he cannot bring himself to show any kind of contrition whatsoever. This is dangerously close to my dictionary's definition of "corrupt". And Brown, frankly, is about 10% of the economist he makes himself out to be.

Anyone who votes for Blair whilst having made detrimental comments about the Americans voting for Bush is being somewhat hypocritical I think.

I'm tempted to buy this book in case it can provide an answer. However I live in a Minister's constituency and the local result is a foregone conclusion. I therefore use, and always have used, the opportunity to vote against labour in the interest of balance, and like you last time I voted Green.

It was, I think, Willie Whitelaw who said that landslide majorities are bad for the country - whereupon Thatcher sacked him - but he was spot on. If Blair's crazy tampering with all the systems had suffered some kind of opposition and balances, half the crap wouldn't have got through, and he would be a more humble man.

How will history judge him I wonder?

I am not a socialist, but I do think that socialists deserve to have someone to vote for. Not some watered down tory with a self-belief that borders on the messianic and a Washington-based monkey-brain for a "friend". He is an odious patronising tosser in my opinion.

The Tories mistake, perhaps, was in voting William Hague in immediately after Major lost. It was quite clear that they as a party were going to be in the wilderness for (at least) two terms, until they lost some of the dinosaurs. So they got their best hope as a leader and wasted him, eventually electing one of the dinosaurs(!) after trying their own liberal version in the shape of wossisname. Can anyone really forgive Michael Howard? I still wonder whether he threatened to overrule him, and whether Anne Widdecombe wasn't spot on.

At least Charlie Kennedy seems to have a good time, Ken Clarke-ishly. Although is it my imagination or is he putting on the pounds these days..?

And this is the democracy we so conceitedly imagine the rest of the world envies so much.

Around here we can only vote Lib Dem here. They hold a thin majority over the Tories and have kept them out for the last two elections. Would that I could express my feelings by 'protest' voting. The only thing that would achieve (if but a few hundred of us did it) would be to get the Tories back in, which is totally unacceptable.

I'm not buying all this 'New Labour are the Tories in drag' stuff. They are operating in a different society to the 20-60s. Over their 18 year tenure the Tories changed the landscape for good - it's impossible to completely kill their legacy or completely reverse it.

It’s interesting how people with axes to grind bang on about the creeping privatisation of the secondary sector. This is financial expediency, not some dark plot to privatise the NHS. The legislation that has been brought in over the last six years has marked the most sweeping changes to the NHS since 1948, and positions it about as far away from where it would be if the Tories were still in power as it is possible to do. And zeroing in on a few hospitals is hardly representative. Of course, there are many grumpy ex fund holders and champions of the internal market who long for the days when the NHS was a cash cow to be raped, and where patient welfare was a long way down the agenda. Which is not to say that where we are now is perfect – but I know where I’d rather be.

Is anyone seriously trying to suggest that if Harold Wilson was still in charge we would have told Bush to fuck off? Or that the Tories would have done anything differently? I strongly oppose what’s happened in Iraq but is this party political issue? Tunnel vision here I think.

IMO. Insert usual subjectivity clause here (replacing the word ‘Hi Fi’ with ‘politics’,


Cheers

Harry

Whoever you vote for the government gets in

It's obvious now you say it.

Unless I've spent 40 years misunderstanding the electoral process in the UK I shall do as I always do at a general election. I shall vote for the candidate who i think will best serve me and the constituency in which I live regardless of party affiliation.
I believe that the formation of a government is a side effect of accumulative voting.

Bob

I can't help thinking that protest voting is a dangerous game to play. Combined with voter apathy, there is clearly the potential for tory/far right victory.

Vote New/Old/Borrowed/Blue Labour, and tell your electoral candidate what you want the party to become.

BOR

The Tories policies on Asylum have played well with the voters and they will be using the same 'voter targeting software' that was used successfully by the US Republican party. I think therefore that they will maximise their voting potential, although that's pretty low right now.

Still, there's not much room for complacency by Labour, although I can't see them losing it this time.

I think that the serious threat to Labour may come in 2009 when the Tories will probably have a new, younger leader and clearer policies, the electorate will have forgotten about the old Tories so will be more inclined to vote for the new ones and Labour will have forgotten why they were out of power for so many years and will slide back to the left (under Brown or whoever succeeds Tony Blair).

The Lib Dems lack any real charisma or imagination so they should do well but, I think they'll come third.

I'd still rather vote for President Bartlett.

Regards
Steve M

The rebranded New Tories will I think do rather well in 2009 and I am sure will capture the vote by moving to the left and taking the centre ground away from New Labour. To echo a point made by Steve M people who have known no other than New Labour will feel it is time for a change and vote New Tory. I am not too sure if the policies of New Tory and New Labour will be all that diffrent from each other so voting for a change is as good a reason as any.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy T:
I am not too sure if the policies of New Tory and New Labour will be all that diffrent from each other

---

This is true world wide - ie: the actual difference between "right" and "left" is so small as to be non-existent. According to John Ralston Saul, its been this way for decades. In New Zealand, the discussion now uses the terms "centre-left party" and "centre-right party".

Central governmment politics in general has for a long time been more to do with celebrity than integrity and ability.

As for economics, it doesn't work and when it doesn't work the economists just claim that its because the government didn't apply the theory rigorously enough in practice.

Deane

Political parties with 'serious' aspirations to power inevitably drift towards the centre because previous experience in government dictates the extent to which ideology gives way to pragmatism.

Blair recognised this hence the birth of 'New Labour' which is basically a left-wing Tory party but it brought him victory in '97 and there's no reason to believe he won't win next time so why should he change now?

The consequences for the Conservative party of course have been electorally devastating. A necessity to appear distinctive from Labour who have long since usurped their own agenda has seen them lurch uncomfortably to the right, making them even less palatible than ever as an alternative government.

The Lib-Dems seem to be the best 'choice' by comparison with the others, to this voter anyway, but they're still seen as the 'third' party and as long as they do it's hard to see them ever achieving outright power any time in the near future.

Bottom line, as has been said before, is that Blair will win the next election, not because most voters really want him to win, but because the other two parties do not represent much of an option.

The thread title says it all - whatever the electoral result, the aspirations for the nation will give way to little other than a whirlwind of resignation and cynicism.

JR [off to get his happy pills]

It's Top Gun.
The New Labour movement are in there after Tory rule for 18 years and the success has been good, but now there is in-fighting and Tom Cruise has brought about his own downfall and let his grip on the Holy Grail slide. We are at the point where he is hitting rock bottom. Soon there will be a world crisis and he will pull himself out of the shadows to save the world and score the final winning goal in extra time (that might have been Billy the Fish & King Arthur in there too - but you know what I mean).

Here in Scotland the politics are a little different to the situation in England as we have an additional significant party in the SNP.

New Labour - similar to the situation elsewhere in the UK but with if anything even less political talent on show (and what there is languishes on the back benches haven fallen out with their leader).

Liberal Democrats - An absolute disgrace who, at the first hint of sniff of power, sold out everything they believed in to share a little bit of labours power.

Tories - a total non-entity and they barely try any more.

SNP - The only socialist option available now, but they are severly lacking in any real political talent with only Alex Salmond impressing. Definitely not ready for goverment (the thought of them handling the economy is scary) but worthwhile as an opposition party.

Green Party - The usual mix of common sense policies with total madness however severely tainted by their alliance with Tommy Sheridans barking Scottish Socialist Party.

There are the usual oddities as well e.g. The Scottish Socialist Party who's main claim to fame is getting the stupidist candidates imaginable elected to the parliament and the pensioners party who's solitary elected representative's main claim to fame was putting forward a bill to get gay people "treatment" on the NHS...

Here we are resigned to the Liberals [our Tories] being in power for at least the next seven years. By then John Howard will be closing in on Menzies as Australia's longest serving PM. And you think you have problems. Our voters at the recent election handed Howard total control of both houses. He can now do as he likes without restraint. Mind you he will be very cunning as we vote every three years and the last two years of each term are fast becoming part of the campaign for the next election.