+- Pink Floyd Online Forums (http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Other Stuff (/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Outside The Wall (/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: General Election - UK (/showthread.php?tid=7463)
- Dyolf - 08-18-2007 03:50 PM
So, who would you vote for in the next UK general election? ???
- only floyd - 08-19-2007 01:29 AM
Strange, it says Ive voted and I hav'nt
- Philintheflesh - 08-19-2007 02:23 AM
Still Labour, despite the misguided foreign policy. I mean look at the alternatives. :Oo:
- Adam Heart-Mother - 08-19-2007 05:30 AM
Philintheflesh Wrote:misguided foreign policyThe word misguided is at best optimistic in this case. The fact that a democratically-elected government can completely ignore the largest mass demonstration this country has ever seen and yet still have the arrogance to claim to represent the people is yet another reason I simply cannot vote for Labour again, at least not until every single one of Blair's cabinet has gone.*
Don't forget, people - the word "spin" has now entered the vocabulary of government. When I was a child we preferred to use the old-fashioned word "lies" to describe the same half-truths or omissions.
(*Sadly I also think the opposition is currently pathetic. If an election is called tomorrow I'd have a serious, serious dilemma as to where to place my cross.)
- Dyolf - 08-19-2007 05:30 AM
I'd vote for Labour - Gordon Brown will make some good, proper changes if he gets a good run as PM, and I don't like the LibDem income tax policy - your just asking people to give up work and go on the dole...
- floydianyid - 08-19-2007 05:34 AM
Philintheflesh Wrote:Still Labour, despite the misguided foreign policy. I mean look at the alternatives. :Oo:don't vote for any of them turds, voting sucks!!!!
- Dyolf - 08-19-2007 05:39 AM
floydianyid Wrote:Thanks for that well thought out and thought provoking comment.Philintheflesh Wrote:Still Labour, despite the misguided foreign policy. I mean look at the alternatives. :Oo:don't vote for any of them turds, voting sucks!!!!
- floydianyid - 08-19-2007 05:45 AM
Dyolf Wrote:You vote in your crummy party then you have no say on what they do from then on.floydianyid Wrote:Thanks for that well thought out and thought provoking comment.Philintheflesh Wrote:Still Labour, despite the misguided foreign policy. I mean look at the alternatives. :Oo:don't vote for any of them turds, voting sucks!!!!
Democracy is a joke, It would be so much better if we could vote on every important decision rather than electing a party that is full of ****.
- Adam Heart-Mother - 08-19-2007 05:46 AM
Dyolf Wrote:Gordon Brown will make some good, proper changes if he gets a good run as PMLike he did to everybody's pensions when he was Chancellor? Like he did to our spiralling Balance of Payments? It's never been worse, you know - that's why the economy looks quite good on the surface. Gordon Brown also looks good on the surface but I fear if he does get a good run at it he will surprise all of us. Not in a good way, either.
- Philintheflesh - 08-19-2007 05:51 AM
Adam Heart-Mother Wrote:Don't forget, people - the word "spin" has now entered the vocabulary of government.Yes, it has, unfortunately. But I think Brown is keen to bring a halt to that. I doubt he has either the guile or the will to do it.
If anything, it`s the Conservatives (with their own "Blair-clone", and his self-consciously "hip" persona) that are set to perpetuate that. Labour has stolen the middle ground, so the Tories were left with a choice...either go further right (not many votes in that), or battle it out in the centre (much to the chagrin of traditional Conservatives). You could say the whole positioning of the Tories right now is a "spin".
- Adam Heart-Mother - 08-19-2007 05:56 AM
Fair comment, I'm not happy with any of them at the moment TBH
- Narrow Way - 08-19-2007 06:18 AM
floydianyid Wrote:Democracy is a joke, It would be so much better if we could vote on every important decision rather than electing a party that is full of ****.
That WOULD be a democracy.
In America we hoodwink ourselves with this democracy bit. We have a republic.There's a democratic "process" in elections, but then there is a way to win the most votes but lose the election.
Good luck to you guys with your election.
Edited By Narrow Way on 1187533115
- Dyolf - 08-19-2007 06:40 AM
Narrow Way Wrote:there is a way to win the most votes but lose the election.:Oo: ???
- Narrow Way - 08-19-2007 06:47 AM
:unclesam:
Yep, that's why so much weight is put on winning "states" rather than votes. Our president isn't elected with popular votes, he or she is elected with "electoral" votes.
:unclesam:
Edited By Narrow Way on 1187534856
- Philintheflesh - 08-19-2007 09:49 AM
Dyolf Wrote:That`s technically possible in the UK too, but far less likely than in the US. (eg Gore winning the "popular" vote but losing in 2000).Narrow Way Wrote:there is a way to win the most votes but lose the election.:Oo: ???
The disenfranchisement of millions voting for a party in one state, and yet that whole state, and all it`s electoral votes, going to the opposition (specially a populous one like California) doesn`t apply.
In the UK, votes are for your local MP (Member of Parliament) of which there are 659....the average constituency being less than 100,000. So a party would have to be damn unlucky to win the "popular" vote, but lose the election.
....They`d have to win seats "heavily", & lose seats "narrowly" all over the place for that...possible, but highly unlikely.
The real loser in either the UK or US system is any "3rd" party...that`s why the LibDems always push for PR.
- Dyolf - 08-19-2007 03:09 PM
Philintheflesh Wrote:Cheers.Dyolf Wrote:That`s technically possible in the UK too, but far less likely than in the US. (eg Gore winning the "popular" vote but losing in 2000).Narrow Way Wrote:there is a way to win the most votes but lose the election.:Oo: ???
The disenfranchisement of millions voting for a party in one state, and yet that whole state, and all it`s electoral votes, going to the opposition (specially a populous one like California) doesn`t apply.
In the UK, votes are for your local MP (Member of Parliament) of which there are 659....the average constituency being less than 100,000. So a party would have to be damn unlucky to win the "popular" vote, but lose the election.
....They`d have to win seats "heavily", & lose seats "narrowly" all over the place for that...possible, but highly unlikely.
The real loser in either the UK or US system is any "3rd" party...that`s why the LibDems always push for PR.
Did you research that or have you lived in both countries?
- Philintheflesh - 08-19-2007 03:38 PM
Dyolf Wrote:Cheers.:D
Did you research that or have you lived in both countries?
Neither!...But I follow the US elections pretty closely...since the Florida "hangin` chads" of 2000 anyway.
- rolanddoe - 08-19-2007 03:52 PM
Actually, Phil, the real loser would be whichever candidate was more adversely effected by the third party's presence. There never would have been any Bush Administration or concern over hanging chads were it not for a very vainglorious fool named Ralph Nader, who accomplished nothing other than the subversion of the democratic process with his candidacies.
Edited By rolanddoe on 1187570328
- Philintheflesh - 08-19-2007 04:37 PM
I guess that was true in 2000...those "Green" votes going to the Democrats, had Nader not run.
The LibDems in the UK is perhaps a little different, in that they are an established political force, regularly get 25% of the vote, but often only emerge with a handfull of "seats" (ie MPs).They can sometimes use this to affect the balance of power in Parliament, but if either Labour or Conservative win by a sizeable majority, their power is pretty much zero.
- Dyolf - 08-20-2007 04:57 AM
Philintheflesh Wrote:I guess that was true in 2000...those "Green" votes going to the Democrats, had Nader not run.The LibDems have never had any real power in parliament, and probably never will - they're simply not trusted by the British public (as a whole). The Torries are looking a little shifty too with MPs defecting to the Labour party.
The LibDems in the UK is perhaps a little different, in that they are an established political force, regularly get 25% of the vote, but often only emerge with a handfull of "seats" (ie MPs).They can sometimes use this to affect the balance of power in Parliament, but if either Labour or Conservative win by a sizeable majority, their power is pretty much zero.