And so it begins

[weebleswobble]

As someone once said about our lot: "If voting could change anything they'd ban it".

"Don't Vote it just encourages them"

Still I'll be putting my X in the box and voting

[Brideoffrankenstein]

I never have a clue who to vote for. Can somebody tell me?

[stufarq]

we do not have two big parties like in the UK (or the US for that matter), but a lot of small parties, the effect of which is that you always need two or three parties to form a government, with a watered programme as it has to be a compromise acceptable for these two or three parties.

Scrap that, it is even a bit more complex...as we have two linguistic regions (the flemish, and the walloons + Brussels which is a combination of the two), and the parties are different in the two regions, you have a government that is watered down by the fact that you have to have a majority overall, which means you will have 4 or five parties with their own agenda, and they need to find a project on which all these parties agree with.

Watered down or more democratic because more opinions have to be taken into account?

4 or five parties with their own agenda, and they need to find a project on which all these parties agree with.

That bit in particular sounds like utopia to me. It might take longer but it's less about power and more about cooperation. Almost the definition of democracy.

[Pista]

I never have a clue who to vote for. Can somebody tell me?

The good guys is usually the best.

[boudicca]

I never have a clue who to vote for. Can somebody tell me?

Clue - Not the Tories!

[boudicca]

Seriously.

[Erudite]

I never have a clue who to vote for. Can somebody tell me?

Clue - Not the Tories!

I thought you posh birds always voted Tory?

[Erudite]

I never have a clue who to vote for. Can somebody tell me?

You could start by reading the different party manifestos but in all honesty many of their promises won't be worth the paper they're printed on. Not that that will stop the party spin doctors coming up with suitable excuses further down the line for failing to deliver on their election promises.

Going down a level, examining exactly who is standing for election in your constituency is never a bad thing. The present incumbent should be relatively easy to check up on – examine his or her entry on TheyWorkForYou. This will let you see their voting record on motions in the Commons, any committees they serve on and if he's been using your money to have his moat cleaned!

Another issue to consider is if you are dealing with a marginal seat i.e. one that could swing to either of the two main parties. As has been remarked elsewhere on this thread, there might not be anyone you want to vote for but there's probably someone you want to vote against i.e. the Tories / BNP / UKIP.

The truth is, no matter who gets in, given the size of the national deficit, there will be cuts and increased taxes. Any money someone offers to save you directly i.e. by not raising your National Insurance contribution will in the end be taken back indirectly through such means as an increase in VAT.

That said, having lived through the previous eighteen years of Tory government, it's not something I wish to repeat.

[markfiend]

The present incumbent should be relatively easy to check up on – examine his or her entry on TheyWorkForYou. This will let you see their voting record on motions in the Commons, any committees they serve on and if he's been using your money to have his moat cleaned!

This presents me with a bit of a problem. If my current MP (John Battle, Lab) were standing again I wouldn't hesitate about voting for him. I know his record, and while he has voted the "wrong way" (i.e. opposite to how I would have voted) on a few issues, he's gone the "right way" on far more. And I've corresponded with him on a couple of issues and found him to be very helpful. But he's retiring at the end of the parliament.

The Labour candidate who's standing is a bit of a mystery, so I have a temptation to try to give Labour a "bloody nose" by voting for the LibDems. But I doubt it's worth the effort; last election the figures for my constituency were something like Labour 56%, LibDem 18%, Tory 14%. It would take a pretty drastic swing to overturn a majority like that!

[Erudite]

Aye, that's a pretty safe seat - much like our Lib Dem incumbent Malcolm Bruce with 45%. Probably would be higher but we have a four way split with Labour, SNP and the Tories.

[timsinister]

It'd be nice to think our rather outdated system of Proportional Representation would have been overhauled by now, unfortunately the condition of electoral reform hinges on which party gets in!

[Silver_Owl]

Just found out my local LibDeb MP is Nigel Rock.


I'm guessing it's not a stage name. I was expecting somebody like Lemmy.

[DeWinter]

My local M.P is standing down before he's booted out. He's a forgetful chap, paid off his mortgage but carried on claiming for it for over a year, then tried to use a few hundred year old law to get out of being prosectuted. Never once voted against the party line and for all his loyalty his town is still a complete dump and a byword for deprivation. At least Hull got a shiny new revamp for continually voting in that arsehat Prescott.
I don't think we've ever had such an uninspiring choice put before us, to be honest. I don't think there's even a "least worst option". The Labour Government actually went to court and claimed the idea that a manifesto commitment was binding is "laughable" so whats the point of even reading theirs? As for Cameron and his "cast-iron" promises..
None are offering anything sensible, like a plan to drastically reduce our dependence on unstable countries for power, or self-sufficiency in food, making our balance of payments actually balance, or encourage us to make things people want to buy.
It's a rather cosy consensus between the two main parties with the Libs quite happy to remain as kingmakers. I'd say the answer is to vote for one of the smaller parties. Make the big three scared of being replaced, and maybe then they'll actually listen to us.
Personally, I'm hoping the Tory party lose. Labour will have to clean up the clusterfuck they've created (watching them slash frontline services will be almost funny) when the QE money runs out and house prices plummet, and the Tory Party will stick a knife in Cameron and bring David Davis back from the wilderness.

[markfiend]

I know his record

That is to say: I thought I knew his record.

[Erudite]

We probably wouldn't be in this mess, and I would probably still be a Labour voter, if Neil Kinnock hadn't snatched defeat from the jaws of victory back in '92.

[randdebiel²]

Watered down or more democratic because more opinions have to be taken into account?

Well, if you take Belgium as an example, you cannot overlook the fact that the country has been politically completely jammed for the last 3 or 4 years because the flemish and the french speaking parties have all been promising things to their own backyard (and against the other side) that they cannot accomplish without the approval of the other side...The problem is not really that there are more opinions to take into account, most of these people probably even have the same views on lots of things, but as they all have to find a way to score on the next election, they all demand things that are not compatible with each other (and with the available money), and they can't go back to their voters without a gain. It is a really complex and frustrating situation.

That bit in particular sounds like utopia to me. It might take longer but it's less about power and more about cooperation. Almost the definition of democracy.

In a utopia you would be right as well, but in the Belgian situation, there is not much cooperation involved unfortunately.

On a side note, I'm not sure I agree that you have more of a democracy because you have more parties, in the end when you have two blocks, one of the blocks has more than 50% of the votes, in our system, you will also have a coallition with 50.1% of the votes or something, so you still neglect as much of your population as in the two parties system. the only difference is that in a 2 party system, you have probably solved most of the internal conflicts in this majority before the elections, which seems like a good way to be able to actually do something once you get elected...

[Brideoffrankenstein]

I never have a clue who to vote for. Can somebody tell me?

You could start by reading the different party manifestos but in all honesty many of their promises won't be worth the paper they're printed on. Not that that will stop the party spin doctors coming up with suitable excuses further down the line for failing to deliver on their election promises.

Going down a level, examining exactly who is standing for election in your constituency is never a bad thing. The present incumbent should be relatively easy to check up on – examine his or her entry on TheyWorkForYou. This will let you see their voting record on motions in the Commons, any committees they serve on and if he's been using your money to have his moat cleaned!

Another issue to consider is if you are dealing with a marginal seat i.e. one that could swing to either of the two main parties. As has been remarked elsewhere on this thread, there might not be anyone you want to vote for but there's probably someone you want to vote against i.e. the Tories / BNP / UKIP.

The truth is, no matter who gets in, given the size of the national deficit, there will be cuts and increased taxes. Any money someone offers to save you directly i.e. by not raising your National Insurance contribution will in the end be taken back indirectly through such means as an increase in VAT.

That said, having lived through the previous eighteen years of Tory government, it's not something I wish to repeat.

Thanks

Our area is Lib Dem and has been for *aaaages* and last general election I voted Lib Dem purely because of this. Generally I see things about our MP in the local press fairly regularly so I assume he must be doing stuff. Plus he is a nice man and let me and my mum have the last table at a restaurant when it was fully booked when he wanted it himself ha ha ha

I don't think we are in danger of being in a marginal seat area as you only ever seem to hear about them on the news and we've never been on the news

[UtterlyBastardGroovy]

I'm almost in favour of compulsory voting, but it kinda defeats the object of freedom of speech, doesn't it?

I make a point of always voting in every election and urge everyone around me that'll listen to do the same. It's important. And then some.

if voting was compulsory then there ought to be some sort of "I don't want to cast my vote for any of the above" box. Ppl shouldn't be forced to accept candidates that they don't agree with.
(although I wonder what happens when 'None of the Above' wins the most seats? )

[markfiend]

I'm almost in favour of compulsory voting, but it kinda defeats the object of freedom of speech, doesn't it?

I make a point of always voting in every election and urge everyone around me that'll listen to do the same. It's important. And then some.

if voting was compulsory then there ought to be some sort of "I don't want to cast my vote for any of the above" box. Ppl shouldn't be forced to accept candidates that they don't agree with.
(although I wonder what happens when 'None of the Above' wins the most seats? )

None of the Above—now there's a candidate I can really get behind.

[Brideoffrankenstein]

None of the Above—now there's a candidate I can really get behind.

I know a group of people in Norwich who actually stood for election under that name. They were s**t themselves incase they did actually get elected

[timsinister]

The sheer amount of people who would do that would leave us with no elected government at all! Then what?

The hell with that...the Scottish would probably invade!

[Erudite]

The sheer amount of people who would do that would leave us with no elected government at all! Then what?

The hell with that...the Scottish would probably invade!

Be afraid, be very afraid, ya bass!

[stufarq]

The sheer amount of people who would do that would leave us with no elected government at all! Then what?

The hell with that...the Scottish would probably invade!

Yes, once again we'd have to bail you out of trouble.

(1603/1706 for anyone not spotting the reference.)

[boudicca]

The sheer amount of people who would do that would leave us with no elected government at all! Then what?

The hell with that...the Scottish would probably invade!

We do that anyway. Well, when I say "The Scottish", I mean "Me"

[Erudite]

Unfortunately for Eck, I don't see us invading to the tune of twenty MPs.
But I guess he can dream.


Actually, the next time the MSP for Gordon holds a surgery I need to have a wee talk to him about a certain manifesto promise relating to education.