Apparently, there's like, an elekshun soon. Next week or something. With rosettes and posters and stuff.
Does anyone care?
Edit: Vote Ringo for stricter controls on illegal typos
[ 25.04.2005, 06:53: Message edited by: Vogon Poetess ]
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
I want Jeremy Paxman to interview the political leaders every week. That is one plus from this election.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Did you mean 'maintaining' an election?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: I want Jeremy Paxman to interview the political leaders every week. That is one plus from this election.
Oh come on...
His ridiculous interview style involves simply repeating a question, regardless of whether or not the interviewee has already answered it:
quote: Packs-Man:Is it true that you have failed to increase spending in this sector?
Politi-Shun:Actually we have increased spending, and here are the figures to prove it
Packs-Man:Is it true that you have failed to increase spending in this sector?
Politi-Shun:No, as I have already stated.
Packs-Man: Have you have increased spending in this sector?
Politi-Shun: Yes!
Packs-Man:You're lying, aren't you?
Politi-Shun:I am not lying, and I resent the accusation, Mister Packs-Man. I have the figures here if you'd like to verify them...
Packs-Man:Meh. (to camera) Well I'll let you, the viewer, decide who to vote for... :roll-face:
[ 25.04.2005, 06:38: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I’m finding the whole thing a bit bleak really, and trying to avoid any tv coverage as their smarmy faces make me
That is not to say I wont be voting though, oh no. The memory of actually having to leave a newsagents because I started crying when I saw all the headlines saying 4 MORE YEARS!!111!! after the US election is too fresh for me to not vote, and have that on my conscience.
But I don’t have any righteous fervour.
On a related note checkout today’s Kilroy-mouth-spaff in The Metro. I paraphrase….
The only thing worse than them coming over here, is them coming over here and TAKING OUR JOBS! Those sneaky thieving foreigners undercut our good honest workers by living TEN TO A ROOM, just so they can rip us off! The fucks!
[ 25.04.2005, 06:47: Message edited by: Abby ]
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
He didn't use that method on Howard last week though. It made for great television. Paticularly when he made Howard ball up his fists and shake with anger, shouting about how he (Howard) would be friends with Bush.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
oh yes, I remember putting a circle round the Paxman interviews in the TV guide last week. Didn't remember to actually watch em though.
I got my postal vote and everything. However, it will be for my old Earlsfield address, so I don't know anything about who I shall be voting for. Not that it really makes much difference:
Conservative: don't think so Labour: no ID cards, thanks Lib Dems: I suppose so *weary sigh*
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
"Vote for me? Oh, well, please yourself."
I'd rather vote for this ODG (Old+Dead+Gay) than this poisonous little wretch of a man: Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It sounds to me like you'll circle the day on your calender but not actually turn up to vote then veep.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I've started writing about ten different replies to this thread and given up on the whole lot of them.
I'm voting Lib Dem.
Profile of typical Lib Dem voter:
Shakes with rage at the sight of a Tory or a Labour. Can't explain why.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Read again, Mikee, I have a postal vote. Requires even less effort than going to a polling station. Assuming they send it me in time, of course.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
I dare say I'll drag myself to the polling booth, but voting has never felt more like a choice between a rock and a hard place, or the lesser of a number of evils. And is it me, or are they even more lying and oleaginous than ever before? Bloody Blair with his hands carefully stage managed in his pocket, and his bloody cup of everyman tea. After the war in Iraq I swore I wouldn't vote Labour, but what's the alternative? In an ideal world, where we all vote how we feel, not tactically, we could vote LibDem and not inadvertently let the Tories in by the back passage,
Maybe, as I suspect South Hackney is about the safest imaginable Labour seat, I can vote Green or something as a protest. That'll show 'em.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
I'm voting Lib Dem. Why? TO SAVE LADYWELL LEISURE CENTRE
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I have a postal vote.
You could just draw a ring around the envelope and hopefully it will take care of itself.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
UKIP for me
Posted by Tom Boy (Member # 765) on :
Are you thinking what we're thinking?
Eerrm... politicians are all a bunch of lying, corrupt cun*s? Yeah thought so
[ 25.04.2005, 08:32: Message edited by: Tom Boy ]
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
I'm in the worlds safest Labour seat. You don't get much safer than a 22,000 majority in an area full of ex-miners and ex-mines. Seriously, you can't move round out way without falling down a pit shaft. Also, I have a legalise cannabis party candidate!! How exciting is that?
Has anyone got an exciting MP? Like an important one? I've always wanted to be able vote for/against a cabinet member or something.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I'm going to vote Liberal Democrat. Labour will barely get their deposit back in Newbury... so a vote for anything other than Lib Dem is really a vote for the Conservatives
Also David Rendel MP has backed plans to build a "cinema" in the town. Apparently that's like a giant television in a room, on which you can see moving images and hear the sounds of famous people, in exchange for around £6.00. Wonders will never cease!
[ 25.04.2005, 08:41: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Has anyone got an exciting MP?
Mine's got a wonky eye. Will that do?
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
My one looks a tad insane
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Anyone not already completely disgusted with the election campaign should check out Peter Oborne's documentary on Channel 4 tonight ('Election Unspun', 8pm). He may write for right-wing rags like The Spectator and The Evening Standard but his piece on the US election last year was by far the best - and actually left him more outraged by the Bush/Rove campaign than with the hapless Kerry's efforts.
Round us, snowy haired Lib Dem Phil Willis holds sway - having ejected the Tories in 1997. Labour, so the Lib Dem pamphlets helpfully remind us, 'can't win' in Harrogate - so I reckon I could justify voting L-D on the basis of not wanting to split the vote and allow the Conservatives back in (the candidate in 1997 was Norman Lamont, ffs).
On the other hand I want to somehow register my support for at least 51% of what Blair's done since he got into power - and from which most people in this country have benefited... even if only in the form of indirect, 'soft' positives (stable economic climate, widespread prosperity, reductions in child poverty). Bear it is, then - and afterwards... Brown?
Also: this election may be 'boring' or 'predictable' or 'meaningless', but these are complaints that tend only to be made by people with full little tummies, a nice green lawn and a Bluetooth widget hanging out of their ear. When you consider the archetypal 'interesting', 'unpredictable' and 'life-or-death' election to be the sort taking place in fucking Haiti maybe we should just appreciate that mellow, edgeless British vibe and fulfil the pretty minimal duty required to keep the job going.
[ 25.04.2005, 08:54: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale blue moonlight?
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
So you mean...the people of lewisham will have nowhere to swim? Who is behind this crazy plan? Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: On the other hand I want to somehow register my support for at least 51% of what Blair's done since he got into power - and from which most people in this country have benefited... even if only in the form of indirect, 'soft' positives (stable economic climate, widespread prosperity, reductions in child poverty).
Is there actually widespread prosperity, or just widespread borrowing on credit? A lot of people I know round these parts (and down London) have the big tellies and Playstations and the latest footie kit etc, but there's no way they're buying that stuff through well-paid jobs and a low cost of living. They get it by buying from catalogues, or remortgaging the flat so that the £45,000 mortgage they started with in 1992 is now for £130,000 instead, or they juggle credit cards, or do childminding on the black or run dodgy car boot stalls.
We've always been tight with our cash, take the cheapest of holidays (six of us going for a week in France for £500 next half term), don't buy posh clothes or gadgets and don't go out socialising and that, but even taking care like that we've still got a big car loan.
OK, we live in a notoriously showy area where the bling factor is all important, but I'm fairly sure it's not just happening round here.
Does the fact that people qualify to borrow huge amounts of cash on the never never signify a prosperous nation?
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
i ain't registered. but i'm with polly toynbee. there's no point protesting the war and the current iraq situation, whoever was in charge would have gone in with the usa thanks to our "special relationship". labour seem to be doing something: see school meals, tax credits etc.
mrsa is not a good campaign policy. its not about cleaning up the dirt its about making sure that people who are carriers don't do cleaning. the dutchers do it that way.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: OK, we live in a notoriously showy area where the bling factor is all important
But a home internet connection that isn't. It's child abuse is what it is Dang.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Is there actually widespread prosperity, or just widespread borrowing on credit?
Well it's going to be a bit of both, really. Clearly there's been a credit boom in the past five years or so, but that couldn't have happened if people weren't already feeling confident about their own finances and the UK economy in general.
It's easy to caricature the deranged spending spree that seems to have been ongoing since the millennium, but more people are in employment and many types of goods have genuinely got cheaper (food, clothing, air travel, electrical/electronic gear). I'm always a little suspicious of the media jeremiads about 'irresponsible spending' as it seems always to be something that someone else is doing (usually a different social class from the writer's own).
In general, though, there's pretty much full employment, the proportion one has to spend on essentials (food etc) continues to fall and interest rates are historically very low. Unscientific I know, but not all those purchases of dvds, ipods, Blueteeth, red wine, oyster mushrooms, city breaks and lifestyle magazines are the first faltering steps on the twisty road to the midnight eviction, the bull-necked baliff, the shivering overnighters with the kids in the car.
[ 25.04.2005, 09:38: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by doc d: there's no point protesting the war and the current iraq situation, whoever was in charge would have gone in with the usa thanks to our "special relationship".
Would they do it again though, if they knew that they would be voted straight out of power at the first opportunity?
That said, it's quite amazing that such emotive issues as the Iraq invasion, compulsory ID cards, grossly unbalanced council tax charges etc seem to actually be of so little importance to the general public that Labour and the Tories (with almost identical policies) still hold some 70% of the vote between them, according to opinion polls.
This sort of thing always reminds me that there is a massive population in this country and that I only ever actually get to communicate with a tiny weeny fraction of them. This can lead one into a false sense of security, believing that there are lots of rational and sane people around, when in fact there are very few.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
This is the Labourer what is in charge where I will be voting. Sinister Maths teacher or what?
Oooh, I've just discovered I could vote for:
Mills, Andrew (UKIP) Wiess, George (vote yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket) Wilson, Alistair (Tiger's Eye- the party for kids)
Edit: just seen from the stats that a vote for the LDs in Wimbledon looks to be pretty much "wasted".
I agree with ben up to a point; Britain is generally comfortably well off under Labour, and they have introduced stuff like the minimum wage and free entry in lots of London's flagship museums. It's the ID cards issue though. It's the one thing that would really make me say, "I don't want to live here anymore"- not in a bratty-teenage-threatening-to-run-away-from-home-way, but in the despairing manner of someone whose country is not what they thought it was. I can't bring myself to vote for anyone who thinks ID cards have a future in this country.
[ 25.04.2005, 09:58: Message edited by: Vogon Poetess ]
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Would they do it again though, if they knew that they would be voted straight out of power at the first opportunity?
<insert global politics rant about how this is all stabilizing the new empire of which we're part, here>
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: It's easy to caricature the deranged spending spree that seems to have been ongoing since the millennium, but more people are in employment and many types of goods have genuinely got cheaper (food, clothing, air travel, electrical/electronic gear). I'm always a little suspicious of the media jeremiads about 'irresponsible spending' as it seems always to be something that someone else is doing (usually a different social class from the writer's own).
I don't have facts to quote, just observations of people I know. It just seems to me that if people borrow to the max at a time when interest rates are historically low then they really are going to be stuffed if - *cough* - when the rates change. I know that I will be, although I have plans to duck out for a bit in the next couple of years, God willing.
To suggest that people are confident and sensible and fully aware of their own financial limitations is head in sand time. Confident, maybe, but people are confident that they can drive big cars forever more, or that they can retire at 65 and live a happy life of luxury till they die. That's not being sensible or aware of financial limitations, that's living in blind hope.
As I say, I don't really know the first thing about everyone else, but just taking my own situation, with just the one car loan and a mortgage, I know I will be really stuck if interest rates start rising to anything like the levels we were once used to.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
How's this for a choice?
David Rendel(Liberal Democrats)
or
Richard Benyon(Conservatives)
or
Oscar Van Nooijen(Labour) Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Christ, Misc. You do NOT live in a democracy.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
VP's chap clearly chose the backdrop to match his eyes, but actually looks like his head is hollow and someone just drilled a couple of holes all the way through.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: but that couldn't have happened if people weren't already feeling confident about their own finances and the UK economy in general.
Dang - need something to nail this fucker. Let me see your draft word by return. thks. - AC
quote:Originally posted by dang65: To suggest that people are confident of their own financial limitations is head in sand time.
Dang - Not yet strong enough. Need suggestion of ridiculousness of B's position if we are going to fuck him properly. Maybe insert unfounded stuff about plebs being sensible or aware? W/evs. Draft still needs work. - AC
quote:Originally posted by dang65: To suggest that people are confident and sensible and fully aware of their own financial limitations is head in sand time.
Dang - Excellent; will make a media professional of you yet. - AC
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Dang - Excellent; will make a media professional of you yet. - AC
That's probably very clever, I expect.
Still, I'm sure my kids and yours will find some way to look after the millions of old-persons-with-no-wedge that they'll be dumped with just about the time they reach working age. Maybe some sort of Drop The Debt campaign will be organised, followed by compulsory granny adoption schemes applying to all persons of working age ("Our grannies should be looked after by those that can afford it!") Yes, that'll work.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: That's probably very clever, I expect.
I - er... Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Thankfully I'm on a superannuation scheme which, while I do pay a hefty whack each month, means I'll be well provided for in my autumn years. ANd it's a good thing too as now I'm a non smoker, the chances of me living well after retirement age have significantly improved, whereas before I was only inclined to look as far forward as my late 40's and the inevitable heart attack.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Thankfully I'm on a superannuation scheme which, while I do pay a hefty whack each month, means I'll be well provided for in my autumn years.
For "well provided for" read "taxed until my trousers fall down". Governments don't look at why you have money (working hard at school an university, being frugal and careful with savings, investing in a sensible pension), they look at if you have money. And if you do then you can afford to pay.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
Could I ask everyone to vote Labour please? You see Tony Blair has been going on about cancelling 3rd world debt and doing nice things for Africa recently. Now would be a crap time for him to disappear off the radar.
So, vote labour. Then us Africans can worry less about debt and start developing broadband infrastructure, meaning I can download movies and music.
Thank you.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
Not that he will. Politicians are always blabbing about helping Africa with debt relief and never do. ****s.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Anyone not already completely disgusted with the election campaign should check out Peter Oborne's documentary on Channel 4 tonight ('Election Unspun', 8pm).
I enjoyed that, but only in the same way as I enjoy stuff like "The Power Of Nightmares". It's kind of TV for people who know the world's gone madoid and just want some reassurance that at least a couple of other people know it's gone madoid as well.
In other words, Election Unspun was as reassuring to someone like me as The Daily Mail probably is to someone who's worried about all them forrins coming over here, stealing our jobs...
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I saw the latest Tory poster last night: 5 MORE YEARS OF HIM- pic of Smarmy Tone. As opposed to 5 years of Howard? I heard the most accurate description of him recently when a friend remarked that he's the kind of man that would make babies start crying when he smiled at them.
I prefer the new poster for Kingdom of Heaven that's appeared outside our flat, although I did nearly get run over as I crossed the road backwards to keep staring at it.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
My (previously) Labour MP's defected to the Lib Dems :red:
And has been replaced by some horrendous Blair Babe who sacked loads of ethnoids at Islington council.
LibDems here I come...
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by squeegy: So, vote labour. Then us Africans can worry less about debt and start developing broadband infrastructure, meaning I can download movies and music.
Thank you.
I don't know... you try to help a country out, and instead of being grateful, they steal your music!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I saw the latest Tory poster last night: 5 MORE YEARS OF HIM- pic of Smarmy Tone.
I like that poster - it seems to be based on the assumption that it simply hadn't dawned on people who vote Labour that voting labour might mean the labour party leader gets to run the country. Like they hadn't put together cause and effect. "Fucking hell, I voted labour and we still got Tony Blair. What can I do?!? What? You mean voting labour means five more years of Blair? You're kidding right? I'm knocking that shit on the head right now!"
Of course, best of all is the strapline "Are you Thinking What We're Thinking?" Because '5 more years of him (Blair)', actually is what I was thinking. It's a totally bewildering argument, and seems to suggest that the Conservatives think the only reason they don't win is because no-one realises that they're voting for Blair, or something.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Negroids, hey!
I have no idea who are my candidates, but there have been some smug pictures of an indian chap all suited and telling the world about how he grew up round these parts coming through the door, and someone has pinned up a vote tory thing on a tree just outside their house a couple along from me - but their house is ill kept and looks messy.
Anyway, I think this area is as blue as you like.
VP, was it you mentioning Wimbledon? It was mentioned in the times yesterday as one of the shadow boroughs - or uncertain areas or something (I was very tired yesterday so news didn't stick) with a labout lead of a few thousand but with conservatives testing them or something.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Yes, Wimbledon looks like this:
Labour: 45.75% Tory: 36.64 LibDem: 12.99
I hate all this tactical voting shit though. Vote for someone you don't like to stop something potentially worse getting in? Vote for something you vaguely believe in but know won't get in? It's so depressing.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I hate all this tactical voting shit though. Vote for someone you don't like to stop something potentially worse getting in? Vote for something you vaguely believe in but know won't get in? It's so depressing.
I'm afraid that it's sometimes necessary because of our anachronistic electoral system.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
I'm suspect that I am going to be one of those that will be voting purely on a policy of "the lesser of 3 evils".
I don't claim to know hellish much about politics, but I have been paying a healthy interest in all the ppb's and interviews. To be honest, I find it wearysome all this election stuff. I find the way that they all spend more time slagging each other off instead of saying what they will do themselves incredibly annoying but I do realise that I have a responsibility to find out more and vote.
I like the thought of LibDem, but I don't know anything about the main players other than Charles Kennedy. Has he got back up?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: Charles Kennedy. Has he got back up?
Dave Courtney, Roy and Charles Bronson.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Well, that's ok then.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Actually, Kennedy looks like he might be a bit tasty. Especially after a couple of wide-ones. Blair's obviously fit and Howard looks like the sort of dirty, evil bastard that would knife you in a square go, but I reckon Kennedy could have them both. At the same time, even.
Posted by George the Robot (Member # 681) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I prefer the new poster for Kingdom of Heaven that's appeared outside our flat, although I did nearly get run over as I crossed the road backwards to keep staring at it.
Isn't Orlando Gay the 'star' of this film? Can't see how such a limp-wristed fag will pull off being the leading man in a war epic.
On topic - there's some really important issues to consider in this election, but unfortunately they're being buried under the usual piles of spin and guff. So, if nothing else, consider who you would prefer to represent the UK on the world stage:
Charles Kennedy - ginger, drunk Michael Howard - simpering, nasty, dripping, old Tony Blair - statesman, credible, liar
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by George the Robot: Isn't Orlando Gay the 'star' of this film? Can't see how such a limp-wristed fag will pull off being the leading man in a war epic.
I read a preview what said he's good. He'll be in chain mail. On a horse. With a big SWORD.
I guess you're just jealous because there's no billboards down your end of James Road.
Is Howard going to do the thing Tory leaders have to do when they fail to win elections? Who's lined up to replace him?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I'm obviously seen as a floating voter, I keep on getting mailshots from each party. Whilst annoying, this wouldn't be quite so frustrating if they didn't have my full name and address printed all over them so that I either have to tear these bits off and shred them or have my identity cloned (it's obviously either/or, I'm not paranoid, me...)
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
quote: Is Howard going to do the thing Tory leaders have to do when they fail to win elections? Who's lined up to replace him?
Mind you I can't bring any other notable Tories to mind....there is one called Dr. Fox, no? Sounds like a radio one DJ.
Anyway here they are, prace bets now!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Lib Dem supporters will be dismayed to learn that erstwhile TMO poster Monkey Susan is their media advisor, so when Charles Kennedy says on the campaign trail "I like blacks - they're like dogs that walk on two legs", you know who to blame.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: Especially if he loses his seat! LOL!
Ace. My constituency is described as, "a safe Conservative seat, very unlikely to fall at the next election. So whichever party you support, it's hard to make your vote count for anything even by voting tactically." So, I'm ideally suited to swap my vote with a Labour voter from Folkstone. They vote Lib Dem on my behalf and get Howard chucked out; I vote Labour for them.
Hmm, can I trust a Labour to do this?
[small voice] All I ask is that the people of Britain trust me to do the right thing for this country [/small voice]
Yes, that seems fine. Signed up to do that. Of course, I might forget in the excitement of the day and accidentally vote Lib Dem anyway, but it'll all work out right in the end I'm sure.
Posted by George the Robot (Member # 681) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I guess you're just jealous because there's no billboards down your end of James Road.
We have one that says 'Cheap Tyres!', so there.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Charles Kennedy has the least manly shoulders of the three. He couldn't carry the Isle Of Wight on them, let alone Britain.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
i hadnt received any mailshots at all until yesterday, when we received a stack of leaflets from the bnp, the english democrats (candidate: gary cocking bushell!) AND the conservative party all. i mean, they were all bunched up together and rammed through the letterbox at the same time. innnn-ter-esting, no?
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
My housemate seems to be getting all the crud through the post. I haven't had one thing other than my ballot card. But he applied for postal voting, so has brought it upon himself.
Our candidates are James Bethal (tory) - likes mountains and raves and pubs and works for Capital Radio Stepahnie Dearden (Lib Dem) - Unfortunate looking, ginger school governor Sadiq Khan (Labour) - Local boy, looks a bit squashed of head. Strachan McDonald (UKiP) - mysterious no info, no photo nobody Ian Perkin (Indie) - sued and won against the Croydon NHS health care trust about charging him for nursing care for his dear old mum, or something Siobhan Moyra (Green) - crazy name, crazy lady Ali Zaidi (respect) - difficult to find anything about him, as googling brings up too much for me to care.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Lucky you Benny.
Your plight has just prompted me to realise that we've not had a single leaflet through the door, that I'm aware of.
Given that we live in the constituency that had the lowest turnout in the entire country in both 2001 and 1997, I feel this is somewhat remiss. Do you think they actually want us to vote?
Actually it's a moot point as we've recently moved I shall be postal voting in my old constituency. Both are safe traditional labour seats.
I'm wondering about protest vote potential. In my new constituency I would have the theoretical choice of Socialist Labour. Or a Lib Dem who got engaged to an old university friend of my partner's the night before the election was due to be announced. I was stroking my metaphorical beard quite a bit when that party invite came through....
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
[ 27.04.2005, 03:29: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I prefer the new poster for Kingdom of Heaven that's appeared outside our flat, although I did nearly get run over as I crossed the road backwards to keep staring at it.
On those posters, the versions I've seen, it has 'Orlando Bloom' above the titles. When did Orlando Bloom get to be a big Hollywood star? I mean, how? and it says 'from the director of gladiator', not 'directed by ridley scott'.
??
very Wrong.
also, i found out my great script idea, an awesome romcom concept that'd MADE MY FORTUNE, has already been done, or has been optioned anyways, something very similar written by someone else, who thought up the idea all himself, too, like me, he will live the dream whilst i have NOTHING, my only good idea evah turned to dust. Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
anyway, can't vote, but if i could, i'd = shock horror - vote labour.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Did anyone see what Channel Four News done last night? They got the people who did that spoof Polo/suicide bomber internet ad to do a spoof party political broadcast. Last night it was for the tories and was mucho lollo.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I hadn't seen that particular article Vikram, but I've read some similar views. I take your point.
Sadly, I can't say that Labour are "my party" - I'd only want to get them back in because the Tory alternative is horrific as far as I'm concerned.
But in the seat in which I'll be voting, the incumbent Labour MP won 57% of the vote last time. A full 34% ahead of the Lib Dems. Tories approximately nowhere. In the seat in which I now live, the incumbent Labour MP's share of the vote was "slashed" to only 71% in 2001 (in the words of the Lib Dems local party website, which continues to amuse me).
Call me complacent, but I think it would take some sort of apocalypse to overturn majorities like that....
[ 27.04.2005, 04:47: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
[img] griningosamablowingshitup [/img]
yeah, so, i read nick cohen's latest commentary just now. how far into the gutter has this election descended, eh? jesus fuck, how idiotic! the sun slammed him for racism!!! um, wtf?
it's all really quite sad.
my hypothetical vote would go to labour, but this time it wouldn't be a vote for blair. wow, that sounds really weird to me. yes, like ben sez, i agree with at least 51% of his actions and policies, britain is a very different and much better place because of him, but dude this isn't sunset boulevard, go and do the speaking circuit, retire, stop.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
reply not edit. duh
[ 27.04.2005, 05:56: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Why can't you vote, Vikram?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I am in the fortunate position of being in a Lab-LibDem marginal seat so can therefore vote my wishy-washy touchy-feely conscience with gusto.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
didn't register for postal votee thing. and kinda don't live in britain anymore so maybe i shouldn't be able to vote anyways.
ah, so these are the issues apparently:
tory scum don'thave a chance
(i hope)
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Reasuring to see that climate change and all that hippy environmental stuff doenst make the list.
Im sure it will be fine! Nothing to worry about.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
S'funny, but it's probably the bottom five on that list that would be of most interest and concern to me as important debating points, along with that trivial future of the fucking planet wotnot, as noted by Abby.
NHS, crime, education - Really not big problems for this country, except in specific flashpoint areas which should be dealt with completely seperately. There's coastal erosion on the south coast, so they have diggers and lorries patching it up all day long. They don't have diggers and lorries all round the coast of Britain. Deal with the local problem as required, don't make out it's a national crisis.
Immigration & asylum and international terrorism - Politics of Fear nonsense. Pointless issue, but endlessly rolled out.
Level of taxes - Ends up staying pretty much the same whatever government gets in. In reality, we should all pay a stack load more tax. No one wants to (me neither, duh) so they shift them around in every budget and try and squeeze a tiny bit more out of us as discretely as possible. Pointless issue, nothing will change either way.
Pensions and social security - this is connected with the future, yes, and it's going to be a massive problem one day, as if it isn't already. But it's a "most important issue" because pensioners and the needy want the government to give them more money now, not because anyone's actually concerned about the future.
Now, how about the important stuff?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
...and what's the definition of a hard-working family? Unexplained term of the election so far.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: ...and what's the definition of a hard-working family? Unexplained term of the election so far.
You know, respectable folks. Not like on Tricia. Our sort.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: ...and what's the definition of a hard-working family?
You know, respectable folks. Not like on Tricia. Our sort.
Ahh, right. Nothing to do with chimney sweeps or sweat shops then?
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Dang, mate, can you confirm that you're taking the piss with your above issues post, please? I'd hate to take you down point by point for you to say something like wuz only joking. That would make me feel like a twat. More so than usual.
Posted by George the Robot (Member # 681) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: ah, so these are the issues apparently:
All this shows is how conditioned people are by what the press says are important issues. NHS! EDUCATION! TOO MANY BLACKS! CRIMINALS ARE EVERYWHERE!
Interest rates (how much spare cash you got after paying mortgage/rent) and transport (how long do you have to sit in your car/bus/train before you get home from work) surely impact on most peoples' everyday lives yet they're right down at the bottom.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Dang, mate, can you confirm that you're taking the piss with your above issues post, please? I'd hate to take you down point by point for you to say something like wuz only joking.
Well, I wrote it in an offhand way, yes, but I'm serious in not seeing those issues as being some sort of national crisis and symptoms of a crumbling society, which is what the papers and "the opposition" (ah-hahahahahaaa *sob*) keep insisting.
What were you going to say then?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: That would make me feel like a twat. More so than usual.
I don't like self loathing Louche. Self loathing Louche needs to take a hike and let Angrusslouche do the typing.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
The donkey's come round, eh.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
But apparently I've put it back into a coma :sad:
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:I'm serious in not seeing those issues as being some sort of national crisis and symptoms of a crumbling society, which is what the papers and "the opposition" (ah-hahahahahaaa *sob*) keep insisting.
Y’see, I read your first post as kind of saying these aren’t important issues, this isn’t what people care about. Now, you might be a bit right on that in some cases. My response was going to be that people should fucking care about them. Each of those things are really, really important if you’re voting for what you want for the country and all of its population rather than voting just on the issues that affect you. The implication was also that it didn’t really matter which lot got in, nothing much would really change in most of these areas. And I don’t think this is at all true.
The Tories and Labour are absolutely polarised on some of this stuff. The impact of a Tory government, would, obviously, be most severe in the poor and deprived areas. But this impact would percolate out, so with increases in unemployment comes a rise in taxes as the benefits bill grows. So with fewer life chances in these areas crime grows and spreads out to the affluent suburbs. With the Tories policy on private school fee paying and expulsions for life you’d get more sink schools, more kids without an education, more benefits to support, more crime, more unemployment etc. And this is all the stuff that Labour does well.
As for the level of taxes, well, you’re probably right on that one, but what about voting for what those taxes are spent on? I’d rather vote for them to go to paying people in the NHS a halfway decent wage than paying for half of little middle class Johnny’s private schooling.
Immigration. Politics of Fear, yes, but the issue obfuscated by this politcs of fear bollocks is whether we want to treat immigrants like complete shit or not. Hmm, do I want to put my name cattle market procedures at Calais or not? No….
Pensions I don’t know enough about to do, I’ll admit, but hey, we can come to that later, if needs be.
But you see, I think an awful lot of that is the important stuff, because it’s about what people what live in this country get on a day to day basis. I think that caring about the NHS and education is about caring about it for everyone. It might not be an issue for you; perhaps your hospital is good and the local school got an Ofsted outstanding and that’s where you’re kids are. And it’s no skin off your nose if everything else goes to the dogs.
But I think I might be imputing things to your post there that you didn’t actually say and inching up onto one of my more patronising moralistic soapboxes so I’ll stop.
Thanks!
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: I don't like self loathing Louche. Self loathing Louche needs to take a hike and let Angrusslouche do the typing.
From the state of above I think it might be Incoherant Louche Day.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
what, its friday already?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I think we're broadly agreed on most of that stuff Louche. I was commenting on the Most Important Issues graph and saying that it looked upside-down from my point of view - that the most voted for issues there are really not of great concern compared to International poverty, the future of transport, going to war on false pretexts and the concealed bubble of interest rates. And the environment isn't even on the list at all (duh, who'd've guessed that with the current level of car ownership and new hyper-giant airliners).
So, yeah, the other stuff matters, of course, but it's made out to be in a disastrous, catastrophic state, and I'm not convinced that it is. Except in a few exceptional places which are permanently staffed with documentary crews.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: So, yeah, the other stuff matters, of course, but it's made out to be in a disastrous, catastrophic state, and I'm not convinced that it is. Except in a few exceptional places which are permanently staffed with documentary crews.
I don't think the fact people think the NHS and Education are important means that they think they're in a catastrophic state. You could be dead happy with them, but still cite them as your most important consideration because you want them to carry on being successful. It's not a list of "things that need to change", surely, just a list of the things that people think about the most when they choose who to vote for.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: So, yeah, the other stuff matters, of course, but it's made out to be in a disastrous, catastrophic state, and I'm not convinced that it is. Except in a few exceptional places which are permanently staffed with documentary crews.
I'm not convinced it is portrayed as being in some parlous state. But, thing is, how you vote affects what state it's in. I mean when it boils down to vote Tory and the Nhs fails your hobbled diabetic granny versus vote Labour and she might stand a chance if she doesn't get MRSA first then you're into some pretty important stuff there.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
I said the same as Thorn and he said it better. Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I don't think the fact people think the NHS and Education are important means that they think they're in a catastrophic state. You could be dead happy with them, but still cite them as your most important consideration because you want them to carry on being successful.
God, is that true? Hang on, why do the opposition keep banging on about those things then? Those issues are supposed to be what's most important to the electorate. Surely the opposition aren't of much use if they're just going on about the stuff that everyone's quite happy with anyway. Maybe someone should point this out to them.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
In Dang's world, things either work or they don't, and nothing ever needs improving if it's working. What a wonderful place Dang's world must be.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: God, is that true? Hang on, why do the opposition keep banging on about those things then?
Because they're votewinners. Because they're important to people. At least half of the tory campaign is an attempt to convince people that these things have been done badly. You may have heard the term 'spin' bandied around over the last few decades? Basically, what this means it that if some figures, or facts are released, then the parties will attempt to 'spin' their take on these figures to best facilitate their goals. So: the Tories will be attempting to take what is an important issue and make people think that Labour are doing it badly, and that they can do it better. The fact the opposition keeps banging on about only means they've identified it as something people give a fuck about.
quote:Those issues are supposed to be what's most important to the electorate. Surely the opposition aren't of much use if they're just going on about the stuff that everyone's quite happy with anyway. Maybe someone should point this out to them.
See above - they will try to convince people that they're not happy, and that they will do it better.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Also, I'm fairly sure that it's not in human nature to consider the good things to be the most important issues anyway. Imagine if a new boss took over at your work and he called a meeting to chat to his new staff and he said:
"Hi guys! I'm Dave. Great stuff. Eh? Now, tell me what the most important issues in the office are?"
"The ambient temperature."
"Temperature? Seems OK to me."
"Yes, it's fine. That's very important."
"Oh, right. Hey, great! Any other important issues?"
"Yeah, the water cooler!"
"Water cooler. Really important to drink water. Has it run out then? Bad supply of new bottles?"
"No, it's fine."
"Fine?"
"Plenty of water. We want to keep it that way."
"OK. Coolermungus! Heh heh. Umm, how about pay? All happy with that?"
"Well, I suppose we could always do with a bit more pay. Maybe next year."
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
[ 28.04.2005, 11:15: Message edited by: Louche ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Also, I'm fairly sure that it's not in human nature to consider the good things to be the most important issues anyway.
Well, obviously not if that list is anything to go by.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: You may have heard the term 'spin' bandied around over the last few decades? Basically, what this means it that if some figures, or facts are released, then the parties will attempt to 'spin' their take on these figures to best facilitate their goals.
Right. So all these people who consider those issues to be of most importance are simply brainwashed idiots? I think that's what I've been getting at all along, that those issues aren't of such importance as the ones below them on the graph, but for some reason (aka 'spin') they have become the most important issues.
What are we actually arguing about here?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: "Hi guys! I'm Dave. Great stuff. Eh? Now, tell me what the most important issues in the office are?"
"The ambient temperature."
"Temperature? Seems OK to me."
"Yes, it's fine. That's very important."
"Oh, right. Hey, great! Any other important issues?"
"Yeah, the water cooler!"
"Water cooler. Really important to drink water. Has it run out then? Bad supply of new bottles?"
"No, it's fine."
"Fine?"
"Plenty of water. We want to keep it that way."
"OK. Coolermungus! Heh heh. Umm, how about pay? All happy with that?"
"Well, I suppose we could always do with a bit more pay. Maybe next year."
A better example would be if there was going to be a vote in the office to make them really hot, and replace the water with strycchnine. Then they'd be very important issues to people. Do you see.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Yes those issues are important. That's why politicians care about them. That's why people's votes change about them.
They are important enough to form the centre of each campaign.
They are important enough for Independent Candidates to win on the back of them.
Which bit of this don't you get Dnag?
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
I'm sorry, I've gone all shouty now as well.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Right. So all these people who consider those issues to be of most importance are simply brainwashed idiots? I think that's what I've been getting at all along, that those issues aren't of such importance as the ones below them on the graph, but for some reason (aka 'spin') they have become the most important issues.
No not at all. If you pay attention, you'll learn more.
They are the most important issues because they are important. People may be happy with them now and they don't want them to change for the worse. That doesn't mean they're brainwashed - it means they're paying attention.
You asked why the opposition keep banging on about it: that's because they're trying to convince people that it's not all rosy, and they could do better.
That doesn't mean that people who consider the NHS, education etc 'important' issues have been convinced by 'spin', or that they believe one party more than the other. Or that they think it needs changes. It's just something that's important. They wouldn't vote for someone without considering their policies on these most important of issues. See?
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
its also a lot more tangible. having hospitals and schools working, is a lot more visible than say cutting co2 emmisions. its easier to see something being done about that, and probably you expect the government to be solving the environment problems quietly. i dunno. maybe?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: In Dang's world, things either work or they don't, and nothing ever needs improving if it's working. What a wonderful place Dang's world must be.
In my world some things need improving more than others. Mainly the things that don't work at all.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Who watched Question Time - The Leaders Debate then? I missed Charles Kennedy as I was watching Britain's true spiritual leader, Ray Mears, on the other side, but I saw Howard and Blair and that was damned good telly.
Howard came across as really cool and confident, sharp and focussed. And a complete psychopath.
Blair looked really freaked out, on the verge of tears, desperate. He didn't show the Cabinet the Attorney General's report "because the Attorney General was there in person to answer any questions they had." That's like not being given a copy of the survey on your new house because the surveyor is in your front room to answer any questions you have.
Every single forum I'm reading at the moment is full of traditional Labour voters saying they're going to vote Lib Dem. The shocking thing is that this could actually mean that the Tories actually win (as noted in the article Vikram linked to).
This is going to be a damned interesting election one way or another, whatever the most important issues happen to be.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Someone needs to organise something along the lines of that vote swapping thing where everyone who would like to vote lib dem instead of labour registers, then 'they' analyse how many people and from where etc and announce wether or not it will let the tories in, or if the lib dems will win (!!). If it is too close to the danger-zone then we all go away and vote labour anyway, but at least Charles will know it isnt personal!
Perhaps a bit late for that now though...
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
God I love Ray Mears - he is the coolest ever! It was because of him that I joined Amnesty International.
I started watching the leaders thing last night because I felt that I should. But, unfortunately, my very low attentions span got the better of me and I got bored half way through Charlie-boy and went off to do something far more interesting but probably not as important.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: God I love Ray Mears - he is the coolest ever! It was because of him that I joined Amnesty International.
You mean you saw him imprisoning and torturing a number of other bushcraft experts who were threatening to make their own tv programmes? I've often wondered how come he's got no competitors.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Nao, it was his program about how people survived in the forests hiding from the Nazis during the war. He interviewed some of the men and even now, 50+ years on they were still physically crying when they told him how they had to leave their families and go into the forests. It affected me in a way that not much else ever has and made me want to do something positive.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: He didn't show the Cabinet the Attorney General's report "because the Attorney General was there in person to answer any questions they had." That's like not being given a copy of the survey on your new house because the surveyor is in your front room to answer any questions you have.
Transl. = "Half my cabinet were/are flakes and would/will leak this thing at an inopportune moment if I gave it to them it in writing."
I dunno. I gave up on QT a few years back - the audiences tend to be appalling (Tory: "Of course, we wouldn't be in this mess if the Prime Minister wasn't such a twat!" Audience: "Hurh-hurgh!!!" *APPLAUSE* - Labour lackey: "Of course, Mr Such-And-Such would know all about that, having overseen 200% rises in underaged twattery while minister for Twats, Pricks and Arseholes under John Major!" Audience: "Urrr-hurr-huurgh!" *APPLAUSE* etc etc)
fwiw. the Tories seem to me to be getting a bit desperate and shrill - essentially a bit of a re-run of the Demon Eyes farce of 1997. The bizarre thing is, they seem to think that once people have 'found out' Tony Blair they'll naturally go flocking back to the Conservatives.
I don't think tactical voting is all that healthy a development, even if it does 'keep the tories out' - I think people have to vote with whoever the believe in the most, otherwise the idea of representation is hollowed out in a pretty fundamental sense. Whatever progress Charles Kennedy makes, for example, will be more because of who he isn't than because of who he is - a depressing result for democracy and hardly a glowing result so far as his own self-esteem and mandate is concerned.
For those wanting to deliver a whipping to the PM, the problem is this: you can't deliver half a whipping - or one nostril of a bloody nose - if you don't know how many other whippers/nose-bloodiers are out there. If you all whip, punch or kick at the same time the result could be fatal - and with the very significant demerit of propelling Michael Howard to power.
And how would you feel then.
Like a bit of a cunt, I bet. Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: For those wanting to deliver a whipping to the PM, the problem is this: you can't deliver half a whipping - or one nostril of a bloody nose - if you don't know how many other whippers/nose-bloodiers are out there. If you all whip, punch or kick at the same time the result could be fatal - and with the very significant demerit of propelling Michael Howard to power.
I suppose this is the nightmare of our election system. Many people spoil their votes, think that they're making some sort of protest. Others vote for minority (or even downright silly) parties, which is effectively the same as spoiling your vote in most cases.
The constituency where we live just now is pure blue Tory. It's populated by people with large amounts of cash and a desperate wish to keep as much of it for themselves as possible, so they're hardly likely to vote for anyone else just because they'll improve the workhouse and the poor schools, or whatever they call them these days.
I feel helpless then. I've tried to swap my vote to keep the Tories out somewhere else, but there's no point in anyone swapping with me because whether I vote Lib Dem or Labour will make no difference whatsoever. So, I'll just do the bleedin' obvious and vote for the party whose policies most match my own concerns, which is Lib Dem. At least it'll be cancelling out one blue vote, like in those medieval war films when, in the middle of a massive battle, you see two soldiers stab each other at the same time and both drop dead.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Today's Times...
quote:Thatcher leaves the country, frustrated at party's failure
BARONESS THATCHER, depressed at the prospect of a third Labour victory in a row, left the country yesterday after failing to take part in a general election campaign for the first time in 70 years.
The former Prime Minister flew to Venice for a short holiday with a close friend and declined to make any comment about the conduct of Michael Howard’s campaign.
A close friend of Lady Thatcher, who is 79, said: “She is frustrated that we are not winning.” The friend added that Lady Thatcher had taken the decision herself not to campaign because of her frailty, but said: “The shit wants to see a Conservative government again. She is frustrated that is not going to happen, despite the Labour Government’s serious shortcomings and all Tony Blair’s lies.”
The virtual admission of defeat from the former Prime Minister’s camp came as the Conservative Party high command prepared to spend £2 million on advertising in the final week of the campaign. Last week the party had £3 million in its account at the Royal Bank of Scotland. Mr Howard authorised the £2 million offensive, which will take the party’s total spending on the 2005 campaign to £16 million.
Lady Thatcher, who attended fundraising events for the Tories before the campaign, will return to Britain before polling day. The shit has declined all invitations to speak or to go to constituencies to campaign for her friends and supporters.
In the last election she went to her former Finchley constituency; the shit drew huge crowds in Romford, which the Tories recaptured with a 9 per cent swing; and was mobbed in Northampton South, one of the key marginals.
“She is 80 this year, the shit knows that she has had her day and that it is for other people to fight the fight,” a friend said.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
Hey all, cal ya do me a favour?
I'm totally out of teh loop on this election. Spose ignorance is bliss, but still, I wanna know.
What's teh most absurd, cynical or dismal piece of crap you've heard come out of the mouths of our masters this campaign?
It'll really help me get up to speed!
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: What's the most absurd, cynical or dismal piece of crap you've heard come out of the mouths of our masters this campaign?
It was amazing to watch Michael Howard confirming that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if he had know about the doubts of legality, then confirm he'd have supported it even if he'd known there were no WMDs, then to state that he'd really love to get rid of Mugabe... He basically just pointed out that Britain is the fourth richest country on the planet and he'd really like to spend some of that cash on a few good old fashioned wars, preferably against defenceless wogs or ragheads, maybe some sliteyes too if they fancy trying anything.
At least Blair has the decency to pretend it was a difficult decision to take.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
I'm just watching Question Time, which shows them all at it.
The people in the audience deserve the worst, most come across as braying morons.
I would have asked how they felt about the news that Mugabee has been shooting elephants to feed the poor.
Posted by dervish (Member # 727) on :
While I feel that it's fundamentally important that people vote on issues, not tactics, it seems to be getting harder to do this. Now, I've not exactly been doing this voting malarkey for all that long - this will be my second general election and yes, I voted Labour last time.
If I went with my heart, I would vote Green. BUT, I'm in Battersea, one of the seats that the Tories really REALLY want to win. They've been campaigning down Northcote Road every weekend for the last few weeks. Naturally, I've made snide comments every time I've walked past them. They've not only sent their freebie flyer, but have also sent letters from both the Tory candidate and Michael Howard, trying to convince me that I should vote for them. What strikes me most is that they're not saying 'we're brilliant', they're saying 'they're shit'. Which is pathetic.
We've got candidates from the big three, Green and UKIP standing this time, and in 2001, Martin Linton had a 13.7% majority. So what do I do? Do I vote Green with a clear conscience - I've made my moral choice? Or do I vote Labour, simply because I want to be sure that the Tories don't get in?
First past the post stinks.
Posted by fish (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Ringo, what's a TWOCer, please?[/URL]
Car theft = Taking Without Owners Consent.
So a TWOCer may mean a car thief.
Posted by Lilith (Member # 507) on :
quote:Originally posted by Meg: So what do I do? Do I vote Green with a clear conscience - I've made my moral choice? Or do I vote Labour, simply because I want to be sure that the Tories don't get in?
You vote Labour. Because if you vote Green and the Tories get in, you'll be kicking yourself all the way to 2009. And besides, the Greens have strange anti-European policies that make them a suspect choice.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
as a die hard labour supporter, i don't feel comfortable with how shit 'our' election system is. i'd always vor labour, but i think others, even plebs, should have the choice, even if it means greens or bnp or whatever
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
I always thought the accepted protocol was this: local election, vote for what you believe will be best for your local area, whether that's Green or Monstor Raving Looney Party - but general election? Don't fuck around, don't piss your vote away on the Lib Dems as some kind of pussy-ass 'statement', simply vote for Labour to make sure the Tories don't get in. Isn't that what everyone (excpet Rick) does?
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by Meg: If I went with my heart, I would vote Green. BUT, I'm in Battersea, one of the seats that the Tories really REALLY want to win.
We've got candidates from the big three, Green and UKIP standing this time, and in 2001, Martin Linton had a 13.7% majority. So what do I do? Do I vote Green with a clear conscience - I've made my moral choice? Or do I vote Labour, simply because I want to be sure that the Tories don't get in?
You vote Labour. I might be buying media reports with credulity or indulging in paranoia but I'm fucking terrified. I can't find another Labour voter for miles and I live in Wigan and have a circle of lefty liberal hand wringing friends. Everyone's voting Lib Dem or saying they are or opting out. If this happens the best we can hope for is a hung parliament and that means everything achieved will end up being tied to the Irish question.
Your MP has a 5,000 majority. If there's a Labour Lib Dem split with some conscientious people voting Green you'll get a Tory. And if this happens in a few other places, we'll have a Tory government. And let's face it, that's not going to do your Green agenda an iota of good, is it?
Vote Labour, Meg, because if you don't you will carry at least some of the can if the Tories get in and the country gets fucked in the arse. If you vote Green, you're basically telling poor people you don't care about them.
Louche: exercises in political hyperbole since 1976.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
P.S. Thanks Fish.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
I'm registered to vote in a safe-as-maisons Tory constituency. Sir MP has been in parliament for 34 years and in 2001 had a 12% majority (I think) over the LibDems.
Two days ago I wasted my vote by post on a smaller party. But I wasted it safe in the knowledge that no matter which way I voted, the Tories wouldn't have been ousted. (Man can only be free when his back is truly against the wall, right?) Given that I am registered in a middle-class retirement in the middle of the countryside and farmland, that won't be happening for a very long time. I guess like many others, I find this electoral system repulsive -- much like the one in the US, it must have been set up so at to impede the development of smaller parties. But my reasoning was: nobody was going to vote for this party while they were getting 2% of the votes, so maybe a few more people will in four years time, after hopefully seeing them get 4% in 2005.
How can a democracy function on a reasonable timescale when there are so many millions of people around? By reasonable timescale, I mean on significantly shorter than a generation. Maybe while the voter doesn't shift between demographics? Actually I don't actually know what I mean but I think I mean something.
Where I am, the system is different; not necessarily better or worse, just different. There are a lot more parties but they all fall into line with other parties to create blocks. The blocks then form the government or one insane coalition if it's too close. I'm sure there is a name for such a system but I know shit-all about politics. But at least, for example, if I vote for the socialists, they work with the bigger social democrat party who form the government. But some socialists also sit in the parliament. That way I can contribute to the growth of a party I believe in without having to vote for one I don't like to prevent the conservatives getting in. Of course it all depends if my party falls into line with the correct block. But that is, at least most of the time, reasonably likely.
I was discussing with some friends last week -- as disillusioned voters that we are -- what our policies would be if we had our own party. The only thing we concluded was that we would be pro ID cards. But our ID cards would also double as citizen top-trumps with our key strengths and weaknesses marked out of 10 by independent committee. That way, whenever you meet someone new, you could decide who was better and then assess whether you still wanted to know them.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: I always thought the accepted protocol was this: local election, vote for what you believe will be best for your local area, whether that's Green or Monstor Raving Looney Party - but general election? Don't fuck around, don't piss your vote away on the Lib Dems as some kind of pussy-ass 'statement', simply vote for Labour to make sure the Tories don't get in. Isn't that what everyone (excpet Rick) does?
It's pointless to vote Labour in my constituency. The Tories and Lib Dems are neck-and-neck in the mid 40%s, with Labour lagging behind on 7% or less. Should I "throw my vote away" and vote Labour anyway, thereby not voting Lib Dem, hence giving the Tories an advantage?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: Hey all, cal ya do me a favour? I'm totally out of teh loop on this election. Spose ignorance is bliss, but still, I wanna know. What's teh most absurd, cynical or dismal piece of crap you've heard come out of the mouths of our masters this campaign? It'll really help me get up to speed!
If the Tory PPB from last night is available online, do check it out. Basically, there was nothing positive whatsoever besides "Send a message to that fucker Blair - yeah, learn that Bliar a lesson, the fucker."
It was a series of captions on a blank screen narrated by someone who sounded like Egg off This Life. The best bit was when he ruled out the Lib Dems as an alternative, describing their sentencing reform plans with a wonderfully theatrical sneer ("Why, you'd have to be some sort of cunt to vote for the Lib Dems. That's right - some sort of cunt.") which pretty much summed up the spirit of the entire Conservative campaign.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: ...("Why, you'd have to be some sort of cunt to vote for the Lib Dems. That's right - some sort of cunt.") which pretty much summed up the spirit of the entire Conservative campaign.
Cleverly, they didn't mention what sort of person you'd have to be to vote for them.
They should, I feel, at least be honest and rename these bitesize political sloganeering sessions "Party Propaganda Broadcasts".
My alternative suggestion would be a special episode of Robot Wars, pitting steel-clad potential Prime Ministers against the might of Sir Grill-a-lot (Jeremy Paxman in a tin suit).
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
