The UK elections

[nickypiemcg]

Is anyone else having trouble deciding who to vote for in the upcoming UK general election? I'd say I am a natural labour voter but I don't want to vote Labour because that would be endorsing Tony Blair's lies about the Iraq War. At the same time The Lib Dem's have unworkable policies like abolishing tuition fees (I'm a law student and I work every weekend and I still have enough time to study) mainly because we have far too many university places and far too many unnecessary degrees. Although I'm not against asylum seekers I liked what Michael Howard said about addressing imigration. I feel it would be hypocritical of me to be absolutely for letting as many asylum seekers in as possible as I don't live in an area that would really be effected by this. It seems one part of the goverments policy is to uphold unfair trade laws but the other part involves letting people into the UK from these very countries we discriminate against. Why not make trade fairer and decrease poverty in these countries. Poverty always brings out the worst in human beings (violence etc)so maybe if the world were a fairer place we wouldn't have people travelling half way across the world to get into Britain. It just seems like voting is a joke in Britain because Labour are definitely going to get in. In the Scottish Parliament we have proportional representation which seems fairer as your vote will always matter. I guess I'm a socialist with fascist tendencies, in other words I'm up for giving everyone a chance but some people are just SCUM and socialism or liberalism doesn't ever recognise that. Ok so it alot of criminals may be from broken homes etc and should be given a second chance but some are just scum through and through. Labour said they were "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". I haven't seen any evidence of this. For a start ASBO's are an absolute joke. Anyway that is my incoherent rant but I felt I had to get that off my chest.

 

[financeguy]

I'm not British but have been following the election campaign. A point made in today's Guardian is that most people are already fed up with the campaign and would rather the vote be held tomorrow and get it over with!

I'd probably vote Lib Dem if I had a vote, they are the party closest to my politics at present.

 

[smooshcat]

I'll probably end up voting Lib Dem as well.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I get my news from the BBC, so have been hearing a lot about these elections. I would probably vote Lib Dem or Labour, but again the Labour vote endorsing Blair's unjust war in Iraq would be hard to swallow. Couldn't see voting for the Conservative party and the quasi-zenophobia they seem to be advocating.

 

[bammo2]

Well the lib dems manifesto reflects my views the closest, but I have an absolute pathological hatred for Michael Howard (ie I don't really know why, but I can't even stand to see him on TV) so the idea of him being PM really turns my stomach. Therefore, I'm having a dilemma. do I vote for Lib Dems, which could be classed as a wasted vote as they're never going to get in, giving more of a chance for the creature of the night to gain power, or do I go for labour, thereby doing all I can to keep the tories out?

PS i would like to add that I also disagree with a lot of what the conservatives have to say, so I'm not basing my whole approach on an irrational (?!) hatred.

I just watched Jeremy Paxman interviewing Charles Kennedy, and I thought he came across very well. Mr Paxman did his usual trick of just pushing in with smart alec comments that made no sense, and Mr Kennedy kept his cool and reinforced his points very succesfully, I felt

 

[bammo2]

Out of interest, I'm wondering how much interest the USA is taking in our election?

I only ask, because when the US election was happening, we had a media whitewash. I couldnt' turn on the TV (or Interference) without hearing about Bush / Kerry. I'm interested to find out how much people care about whether Tony Blair (bush's right hand man) stays in power

If the Lib Dems got in, it would be pretty disastrous for Bush...

 

[Anthony]

I will be voting on the 5th, and I will be voting for New Labour.

Ant.

 

[verte76]

I don't know anything about this particular election, I've been distracted following the whole papal thing. My natural inclination if I were a British citizen would be to vote Labour, but I wouldn't want to endorse Blair's Iraq policy. So I'd probably vote Liberal Dem this time.

 

[meegannie]

http://kryogenix.org/code/conposter/index.php


I would normally say Green, but I would probably vote Lib Dem if I could vote (as would my husband, who would've been able to vote, had he registered in time).

 

[Irvine511]

Out of interest, I'm wondering how much interest the USA is taking in our election?

I only ask, because when the US election was happening, we had a media whitewash. I couldnt' turn on the TV (or Interference) without hearing about Bush / Kerry. I'm interested to find out how much people care about whether Tony Blair (bush's right hand man) stays in power

sadly, because the news market in the US is ratings obsessed, there isn't too much coverage. i would say that most Americans could name at least the Tories and the Labour Party, but the Lib Dems are probably a new term. Tony Blair, especially going into the Iraq war, gets rather glowing coverage in the US media because, let's be honest, the man is a fucking brilliant politician -- no matter your view on Iraq, and i saw this as an opponent to the Iraq war -- and he, in contrast to our president, has a stirring command of the English language. i love watching Question Time on C-Span; very entertaining. i would say most americans might have a developed opinion on Tony Blair himself, especially since he was billed as a "political soul mate" for Clinton, and pretty much Bush's only friend in the whole wide world. however, the machinations of the election itself don't get any more coverage than other newsworthy events that occur outside the borders.

this is, i think, another example of both the reality of how power is distributed in the world -- the president of the US is the most powerful person on earth -- and the ratings-obsession (which leads to breathless, panting coverage of, say, Michael Jackson) in network news.

i, myself, have mixed feelings. i feel as if what i know about New Labour is closest to my own convictions, but there are so many domestic considerations that go into voting that i wouldn't pretend to know how i'd feel if i were a citizen of the UK. while i've spent weeks upon weeks in the UK, i have no idea how specific policies play out in real life. i think that's something many people outside the US forget -- they see our foreign policy, sure, but they don't realize the huge extent to which domestic issues -- issues that they know virtually nothing about -- decide elections, especially in congressional and senatorial races.

 

[verte76]

I must admit that the day the pope died was the first day I'd turned on the news since before the presidential election. Good grief, if I'd given that up for Lent that would have been cheating because it's been completely painless. So for an FYMer, I'm out of the loop. The next news I get will be the new pope. After that, maybe the 2006 elections--??? This is the worst news burnout I've ever had in my life. It'll take the threat of Roy Moore becoming Governor of Alabama to make me get back into TV news. If he does become Governor, I'm probably burned out until the 2008 election. Whew!

 

[deep]

labor will be successful and
blair will remain in office


if blair stepped aside
labor would probably get 10 - 15% more of the vote

 

[BonosSaint]

Would it be possible to give an ignorant American a thumbnail sketch of the parties?

OK, I know Tony Blair--because Bush looked so freaking bad next to him and then I learned a little more.

 

[financeguy]

Would it be possible to give an ignorant American a thumbnail sketch of the parties?

Labour - left of centre, though no longer a socialist party. Roughly equivalent to the Democrats in America. The current Labour government has presided over significant increases in welfare & government expenditure without rolling back most of the Conservative tax cuts of previous Conservative administrations. In this regard, the strong economy has obviously benefited them.
Broadly speaking, they are Pro-European Union.

Conservatives - right of centre, traditionalist, strongly pro-free market. In favour of cutting taxes. Generally felt to have lost its way since 1997, with three different leaders since then. Some similarities to the GOP but without the "Christian conservative" influence which is not really a feature of British politics. Eurosceptic, i.e. sceptical of the benefits of the European Union for Britain. Interestingly, the Conservative leader was snubbed by Bush not long ago because he has expressed scepticism about the management of the Iraq war and related matters, although the Conservatives initially backed the Labour government on Iraq,

Liberal Democrats - historically middle of the road, although now probably to the left of Labour on some issues. Opposed the Iraq war, the only mainstream party to do so in Britain although there were a significant number of Labour rebels who voted against going into Iraq. Strongly pro-civil liberties but not against "big government" as such. Probably the most pro-European Union of the three main parties


By the way, I think Deep is absolutely spot on with his assessment above.

 

[BonosSaint]

Thank you.

 

[Anthony]

Many people do believe that New Labour would benefit from Tony Blair stepping down, I am not so sure myself. Yes, Tony Blair lost a lot of support over the whole Iraq debacle, but he is also the one who, along with Gordon Brown (our Chancellor of the Exchequer), spear-headed the political vision that was 'New Labour'. By inference, Gordon Brown would be his successor, and, even though I strongly approve of Brown and his policies, I can't see him getting the votes. He simply does not possess the same charisma as Tony Blair (even though I can't say he has much charisma, though the public seem to differ on that) and is too rigid in some instances. Surprisingly, he is still seen as 'the nasty one' from the pair.

Again, this is not what I believe. I believe Gordon Brown is a better politician and has more integrity than Tony Blair will ever have, but I simply can't see him as a winning ticket.

Returning to the concept of New Labour. Yes, traditionally they did indeed stand for being left of centre, but that is all but gone. Is it not perfectly clear that Blair's brilliant political manuevering was pushing himself, and the party, so right of centre they essentially evicted the Tories from their former ground? No wonder the Tories were all but extinct for two terms. Make no mistake about it - New Labour isn't, nor ever has been, left of centre, though they have exhbited a more heightened social awareness than the Tories, who, with their short-lived Compassionate Conservatism, demonstrated just how well they still adhere to that Thatcherite adage 'there is no such thing as society'. Tony Blair is simply a more socially aware version of John Major, and, slowly yet surely, he has been losing more and more of what Labour used to stand for. If you think about it, the public figureheads which stand for the former working class socialism, or the traditional Old Labour values, are now caricatures; John Prescott (you could say our vice president) is a joke who can't string a coherent sentence together and punches people in the face when the going gets tough. What a statesman. Red Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, sold out and is now suddenly Tony Blair's political soul mate.

As a socialist, I find Tony Blair's vision of New Labour disheartening, but I do think the party will go back to its roots eventually, at least that is my hope. For the moment, they ahve done a great job with the economy and have improved many aspects of public services. Also, I can't believe things are that bad to get the Tories in. What a nightmare that would be.

Ant.

 

[bammo2]

I agree with everthing you said, Anthony

I really dread to think of the consequences if the Conservatives got in

and I would just have to throw my telly out of the window. there is no way I would be able to stomach seeing that creature of the night all the time

 

[sharky]

as for media coverage in the US, there has been slim to none so thanks for the cheat sheet finance guy. It will become important to us when/if Blair is reelelcted.

Besides the reasons listed above, I think we're missing some coverage because it's not long and drawn out like the presidential election. We start having primaries nearly a year before the general election so you have to fill many more hours. I wish we could have the UK system where the start and end of the election process is short.

 

[ewen]

The Scottish Parliament is governed by a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems.


Tuition fees :
GONE in Scotland, still there in England.

Top up fees :
BLOCKED in Scotland by Liberal Democrats, imposed by Labour in England.

Free personal care for the elderly :
delivered in Scotland, attacked by Labour ministers in England as "crazy" - but thousands of Scottish pensioners are now benefiting from the security and dignity this policy provides

Free Travel for older people :
delivered in Scotland, only now considered four years later in England.

Free eye & dental checks :
on the way in Scotland, but not in England.

The threat of more nuclear power:
effectively challenged by Liberal Democrats. The Executive (the Scottish Parliament) will oppose any nuclear power stations until a safe storage option for radioactive waste has been found

Healthier school meals:
Scottish school meals described as ‘light years’ ahead of England.

The Liberal Democrats are PROVING to be succesful in Scotland, they're making a real, positive improvement to the lives of people in Scotland. now people south of the border need to put their faith in them. They, to use their slogan for this election, are indeed "the real alternative". They are DELIVERING on their manifesto commitments north of the border and unlike Blair will deliver south of the border too.

fed up with people in England saying that the Lib Dems' policies are unrealistic - they're working up here, they'll work down there too!!

 

[financeguy]

Thanks for that Party Political broadcast Ewen.

Maybe in fairness we should ask a Conservative supporter to give us the benefit of their views (looks like there aren't any on here though)

 

[ewen]

 

[bammo2]

I am definitely leaning more and more towards the lib dems. I think Charles Kennedy is honest and trustworthy, and would love to see him and his party given the chance to prove themselves in England

Unfortunately, it's looking more and more like another labour landslide

 

[bammo2]

well, this thread had dropped to page 7, which says a lot about british ambivalence towards politics . compare this to the mess that was interference when there was an american election!! I know that there are a lot more americans on this site, but it's still a pity.

I realised the other day that I'm not going to be able to vote, which I am incredibly annoyed about. I'm going to be away, and am to late to register for postal voting

but I have been interested watching all the debate unfold. Did anyone here see question time featuring all 3 party leaders last thursday? I missed Charles Kennedy, but caught Michael Howard and Tony Blair. Michael Howard revealed himself to be even more of a moron that I thought (which is saying something) by stating that he would have gone to war had he been in Tony Blair's position, and even if he had known in advance that there had been no WMD . He also freely admitted that if he got into power that he would pull out of the geneva convention

tony Blair just reeled out the same old that we've been hearing for the past god knows how long.

If anyone saw Charles Kennedy on this programme I'd be interested to hear how he did

 

[Anthony]

I love it how the British media is painting it as if the election was four days ago, as opposed four days 'to' go, already going into depth as to why Michael Howard and the Kennedy failed so miserably.

Ant.

 

[Irvine511]

I love it how the British media is painting it as if the election was four days ago, as opposed four days 'to' go, already going into depth as to why Michael Howard and the Kennedy failed so miserably.

Ant.

i wish i were over there. would love to watch the wheels of democracy spinning in a different venue.

 

[Anthony]

i wish i were over there. would love to watch the wheels of democracy spinning in a different venue.

Strangely enough, I found the US elections more engrossing. I guess its times like these you really do miss the American media. Funny.

Ant.

 

[Irvine511]

Strangely enough, I found the US elections more engrossing. I guess its times like these you really do miss the American media. Funny.

Ant.

i remember the 2001 UK elections, and they were relatively drama free as it seemed obvious that Blair was going to win in a cakewalk. i think there were some moments of drama -- i remember cameras catching a woman having some sort of a breakdown in front of Blair, about hospitals and such, as he tried to do the calm, "i hear what you're saying, and i understand your concern," thing, and she kept on repeating, "but you people never do anything."

that was pretty cool.

to be honest, i'd rather have a calm process than the apocalyptic, good vs. evil showdowns the presidential elections have devolved into. the narrative, now, is about "the narrative" -- the horserace, who's up and who's down, and who said what and the endless, endless speculation, spinning, and punditry provided by not one, not two, but THREE 24/7 news networks.

also, the US president is more powerful politically in the US than the PM is in the UK -- so i think that there is more at stake in the US due to this fact.

 

[ewen]

well, this thread had dropped to page 7, which says a lot about british ambivalence towards politics . compare this to the mess that was interference when there was an american election!! I know that there are a lot more americans on this site, but it's still a pity.

I realised the other day that I'm not going to be able to vote, which I am incredibly annoyed about. I'm going to be away, and am to late to register for postal voting

but I have been interested watching all the debate unfold. Did anyone here see question time featuring all 3 party leaders last thursday? I missed Charles Kennedy, but caught Michael Howard and Tony Blair. Michael Howard revealed himself to be even more of a moron that I thought (which is saying something) by stating that he would have gone to war had he been in Tony Blair's position, and even if he had known in advance that there had been no WMD . He also freely admitted that if he got into power that he would pull out of the geneva convention

tony Blair just reeled out the same old that we've been hearing for the past god knows how long.

If anyone saw Charles Kennedy on this programme I'd be interested to hear how he did

You can watch it on the web here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/

Kennedy was on first.

 

[deep]

Blair will stay in office and

60+ % of the people do not want him.

I think the UK needs elction reform.

 

[melon]

Blair will stay in office and

60+ % of the people do not want him.

I think the UK needs elction reform.

Or better party leaders. I think Canada is in a similar situation.

Either way, parliamentary democracy certainly has its downside, as you don't get to directly elect your leaders.

Melon