A Thread For UK Elections 2005

[Kangy]

Okay, so our beloved Prime Minister went to the Queen and asked her to dissolve parliament for a May 5th General Election yesterday. Exciting stuff.

I'm hoping that the Lib Dems can really pull something off this time around, but...

The Poll-Tracker says that the Conservatives, the people I least want to win (yes, let's cut spending and have improvements! I totally see how that works now!) seem to have pulled alongside Labour with the Lib Dems slipping a bit. I'm really suprised with the public. I suspected that Labour would win it again, regardless. Howard has never filled me with any kind of confidence or feeling that he'd even be able to run the country correctly, let alone his own party. His policy was shown up by a rogue MP, but people are still holding faith in him?

Ok, whatever. Oh well. Kilroy hasn't come round to my house yet, though. I await him with cat litter in a bag.

 

[The Monkey]

What the hell? He have to ask the queen to hold an election? What kind of democracy is this?

 

[KoreBolteR]

they need a new party altogether.

tory and labour leaders look so boring.
and none of them can do thier job tidy.

 

[Kangy]

What the hell? He have to ask the queen to hold an election? What kind of democracy is this?

It's y'know, heritage and tradition. If she ever said no, the election would happen anyway. Her opinion on something matters very little, really. The Royals opposed the hunting with dogs stuff, but that never affected the turn out.

 

[mortiz]

I'm voting for Lib Dems too. I haven't agreed with Labor for quite a while and the conservatives, well, they're conservatives!

 

[Feath]

What the hell? He have to ask the queen to hold an election? What kind of democracy is this?

It's apparently really unlikely that Her Majesty would refuse to dissolve parliament.

 

[Feath]

It's y'know, heritage and tradition. If she ever said no, the election would happen anyway. Her opinion on something matters very little, really. The Royals opposed the hunting with dogs stuff, but that never affected the turn out.

Well, this quote says otherwise:

The Lascelles Principles are a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom describing the circumstances under which a monarch may refuse a request from a Prime Minister for the dissolution of Parliament. The Lascelles principles are that the monarch can refuse a dissolution if "the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job" or if the monarch "could rely of finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons."

For more information on UK politics, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

EDIT: I suppose I'd better answer the question.

I can't see the Tories winning, some polls have shown they them are ahead but that's only with people who say that they are certain to vote. The only reason that they have any chance is because of falling Labour support, not because of increasing Tory support.

I think I'm a Lib Dem man myself, I think. This is actually going to be the first time I can vote. I can't wait.

But I'm considering voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party. http://www.omrlp.com/

 

[The Monkey]

It's apparently really unlikely that Her Majesty would refuse to dissolve parliament.

It's y'know, heritage and tradition. If she ever said no, the election would happen anyway. Her opinion on something matters very little, really. The Royals opposed the hunting with dogs stuff, but that never affected the turn out.

Yes I understand that she can't do much, but don't you think it's morally wrong? I mean, in theory, she got more power than anyone else, and nobody has voted on her.

 

[Kangy]

Yes, but...

Nevertheless, there was no explicit guarantee of Parliamentary liberties until James II, an unpopular Catholic ruler, was forced to flee the country in 1688. Parliament "deemed" that he had abdicated, but it offered the Crown to his Protestant daughter Mary, instead of his Catholic son.

I suspect that any sort of opposition to a dissolution today from the Queen would result in that.

 

[mortiz]

Yes I understand that she can't do much, but don't you think it's morally wrong? I mean, in theory, she got more power than anyone else, and nobody has voted on her.

Morally wrong? How's that? She doesn't do anything. If she was a dictator and was sending people to their deaths every week you could say it was morally wrong, but just having a monarch isn't morally wrong. It's tradition.

 

[The Monkey]

Morally wrong? How's that? She doesn't do anything. If she was a dictator and was sending people to their deaths every week you could say it was morally wrong, but just having a monarch isn't morally wrong. It's tradition.

It being tradition does not make it right. We got exactly the same debate in Sweden, weather to keep the monarchy or not. The left-wingers here, the socialists, use the argument that the King got power without being elected, even though he got none at all, not even formally. But in UK she does have a lot of formally power, and that's wrong, because even persons like her can change people's opinions, and that's wrong.

 

[Razor]

It being tradition does not make it right. We got exactly the same debate in Sweden, weather to keep the monarchy or not. The left-wingers here, the socialists, use the argument that the King got power without being elected, even though he got none at all, not even formally. But in UK she does have a lot of formally power, and that's wrong, because even persons like her can change people's opinions, and that's wrong.

The Queen of England is one of the greatest heads of state in the world, i would rather have a Queen and a Prime Minister then a President :|.

Registering to vote now, i think i'm going to go for Labour as they have been pretty good over the past years, the main reason though being how they have looked after the economy. But what i am hoping is that Gordon Brown takes over as Prime Minister, soon after Labour get back into power, if they do get back in.

 

[kirovman]

they need a new party altogether.

tory and labour leaders look so boring.
and none of them can do thier job tidy.

Hehe, Veritas? Or UKIP?

I want Labour back, Gordon Brown's economics are genius, he should be Prime Minister. Pity Tony Blair refuses to step down as party leader, can't we vote Gordon Brown, not Tony? And crime has only gone up with Labour because their methods of reporting it have changed (ie they report more). Crime would have gone out of control (more so) under the conservatives, they wouldn't have increased police ability at all.

I will vote the conservatives in again once everything seems all nice and well, under control, bored, and I am in need of a tax cut.

Anyway it's interesting to see the arguements going here, and things getting into full swing. Hopefully we don't go into another recession. Grow Mr. Economy, Grow!

It being tradition does not make it right. We got exactly the same debate in Sweden, weather to keep the monarchy or not. The left-wingers here, the socialists, use the argument that the King got power without being elected, even though he got none at all, not even formally. But in UK she does have a lot of formally power, and that's wrong, because even persons like her can change people's opinions, and that's wrong.

This is a thread about the UK election. Not about the monarchy. Post a new thread about that, I will gladly respond there.

No offence

 

[Asknoone]

I don't like any really, but in the end Labour is ultimatley the best i say...

 

[Razor]

Could anyone give a brief overview of their policies, the big 3 parties, on...

Defence
Economy
NHS
Education
Crime
Europe



please .

 

[Feath]

Could anyone give a brief overview of their policies, the big 3 parties, on...

Defence
Economy
NHS
Education
Crime
Europe



please .

The BBC can: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/issues/html/grid.stm?s1=CON_UK&s2=LAB_UK&s3=LD_UK&x=9&y=11

 

[Razor]

The BBC can: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/issues/html/grid.stm?s1=CON_UK&s2=LAB_UK&s3=LD_UK&x=9&y=11

Thankyou .

 

[Kangy]

I think it can be summed it as such:

The Lib Dems see ways we can move forward. Labour want to coat their previous Good Things in a layer of gold to make them a little better, and the Conservatives seem to be trying to undo whatever progress occured in the last 10 years by cutting taxes where everybody else would increase them. Obviously, they're not dressing it up as this, but it's a likely truth. How can the NHS improve when you're taking billions away from taxes and don't have someone like Gordon Brown running the economic show?

Frankly, Labour make the most sense for a 3rd term as they've yet to fail us in terms of economy and such, but I want to see Lib Dems shadow, or tie the shadow with the Conservatives.

 

[mortiz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/swingometer/html/conlib.stm

I never knew swinging could be so much fun!

 

[el Chi]

...the Conservatives: yes, let's cut spending and have improvements! I totally see how that works now!

Well said, that man!
Michael Howard is such a detestable creature. The current Tory campaign is so repulsively reactionist and pragmatic, I can barely understand why anyone would consider voting for them.
And I can't walk past their ad campaign without feeling dizzy with rage:

I mean, how hard can it be to keep a hospital clean?​

VERY difficult, Mr. Howard. I vote we make that bastard a hospital janitor for a month and see how he likes that.
See how hard it is, Michael, just see.

And of course recently that bombshell where a high-ranking Tory MP was caught ON TAPE explaining that their current manifesto was TONED DOWN.
If they get into power, their lies and hypocrisy will ruin us more than Blair has.

If I vote at home, I'll go for the Lib Dems (lesser of three evils, in my eyes), but if the Tories look at all strong at uni, I'm for Blair.
Just so long as the man of the night doesn't get in.

<Crosses fingers and fetches garlic>


And if the BNP, UKIP or even the hilarious farce that is Veritas get any credible percentage, I'm gonna start a f*cking riot. With shotguns. And dead racists.

 

[kirovman]

The BBC can: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/issues/html/grid.stm?s1=CON_UK&s2=LAB_UK&s3=LD_UK&x=9&y=11

Love Peter Snow's erection alerts.

I like to see things summed up unbiasedly (I think) and briefly, the little flash tools let people play around to learn about the election, rather than go over their heads.

Michael Howard is such a detestable creature. The current Tory campaign is so repulsively reactionist and pragmatic, I can barely understand why anyone would consider voting for them.

Too true. All of their policies seem to revolving around mocking Blair and co, without putting the people of Britain first.
The Conservatives are about being...well, conservative, but the current guys are stuck back in pre-WW2 Britain.

Unfortunately a lot of people are going to fall for it. A lot of people are concerned with short term, and fail to realise the long term.

As for the Liberal Democrats, they have a lot of sensible policies, which would make them the ideal party, but they spoil it all (for me) with the odd totally crazy policy.

Some of my main concerns are crime (hate anti-social behaviour right now- but I think Labour have tackled it better than the Conservatives would), economy (I want a good job environment very soon, Labour leads in this area clearly), and immigration (I don't believe the immigrants want to chose us any more than another European country, we need to be tough yes, but quotas is wrong. Also I hate the blurring of the definition between immigrant and asylum seeker- apart from being foreign, they are totally different. Anyway, that's another debate, another thread maybe). Also health care is another issue I am interested in, the Conservatives would be disasterous in this area I am sure.

Gordon Brown is an economic miracle. I wish he was running for Prime Minister this time.
But I think Labour matches my interests.

 

[Laivasse]

I'm torn between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems because, strange as it may sound, they each have their share policies which I strongly agree with and I'm strongly opposed to. However what probably motivates me most in this election is landing a metaphorical punch in Tony Blair's smug, self-satisfied face.

As such I'm more voting more on the basis of who I don't want in power, rather than who I do. I absolutely could not stand another 4 years under Blair...I know it's expected that he will hand over control to Brown after a little while - but it's been expected for a long time, and part of the resentment between the 2 of them is that Blair was meant to do so a long time back. I don't put it past him to try and last out another 4.

Granted, Blair is not the labour party, but there a lot of faces in Labour who I detest almost as much - Charles Clark, Peter Hain,etc... I'm not denying that Howard is a total slimebag either, but the Tories have made such a big deal out of "accountability" that if they stuff up I'm sure they'll be out on their ear after just one term. By that time, perhaps the Lib dems will have garnered enough support to become a realistic proposition, too.

I'm probably slightly more sympathetic with the Lib Dems than I am to the Tories, but the fact that the Lib Dems absolutely do not stand a realistic chance at all makes me feel it's something almost like the Bush-Cheney election situation - vote for anyone who has a chance, in order to make sure you get that one bastard out.

With *all* that in mind, it's looking like a Tory vote for me unless the Lib Dems pull an amazing campaign out of the bag, that will make me want to vote with heart instead of head.

 

[Laivasse]

I'd just add that I think it's so bizarre that the Labour party see Blair as anything other than a liability. Is there anyone left in the country who still trusts that forced earnestness?

 

[Edcrab]

As a whole British politicians irritate the hell out of me.

How can Howard prance around all self-righteously when he genuinely believes Maggie Thatcher to be the best Prime Minister we have ever had. I mean, ever. The dense Thatcherite views the Tory past with those rose-tinted spectacles of his, while liberally smearing manure over the lenses when examining Labour's history.

So, the rocketing crime rates in the 70s/80s were down to the psyche of an increasingly apathetic nation and thus the Government itself wasn't to blame, according to Mrs. Thatcher. But, come the horribly misreported statistics less than a month back, the current problems are all Labour's fault. Riiight.

And yes, the Lib Dems are, quite bluntly, a throwaway vote. Although ideally I'd like to see them oust the Tories, to become the real Opposition like they've always claimed.

Chirac got into power in France merely because a panic-stricken populace didn't want Le Penn gaining influence- so they leapt unpon the alternative, and to some scary degree I can see this happening in the UK. Howard is one to talk about Blair's past record- the collosal hypocrites are continually remarking on the other's past mistakes while keeping conspicuously quiet about their own.

As for the damn war, the issue is with our pathetic intelligence services. All three parties supported the war with an overall vote, and all three examined the same intelligence and came to the same conclusions- or at least close enough to let Tony have his way. Some faceless politician was saying that this was down to the Common's trust in the PM as a whole- that he was a manipulative, resourceful liar.

Which was bullshit, because well before the war they were slamming his failures home- they're all trying to blame each other rather than the root of the problem- the fact that British/American intelligence is worthless.

So the only party whose current head doesn't have a poor past record are the Lib Dems, who will never get into power. But considering that Labour at least has undeniable economic growth to their name (and no Poll Tax riots... yet) I'll readily vote their way again.

 

[mortiz]

The only way the Lib Dems have a chance of getting in is if people vote for them. OK they may not get in this time, but I'm sick of the Labour/Tory Governments. I think the Lib Dems deserve a chance.

 

[Kangy]

With *all* that in mind, it's looking like a Tory vote for me unless the Lib Dems pull an amazing campaign out of the bag, that will make me want to vote with heart instead of head.

Good Mantis! Don't do it man! The Tories are equally detestable. Howard, I suspect would try and become for Bush what Thatcher was for Reagan. The Conservatives would have pushed for sexy evidence just as Blair did, and I doubt there'd be the flexibility in the relationship that Blair-Bush have. I mean, I doubt Howard would be man enough to stand against US on stuff like the Kyota Treaty. It just wouldn't happen. The Tories are practically full of slimeballs as is Labour. The only difference is that Labour actually have some good ideas in their manifesto.

Vote Lib Dems if you must!

(I don't mean to tell anyone who to vote for, but voting Conservative for the reasons he stated scare me.)

 

[Laivasse]

Good Mantis! Don't do it man! The Tories are equally detestable. Howard, I suspect would try and become for Bush what Thatcher was for Reagan. The Conservatives would have pushed for sexy evidence just as Blair did, and I doubt there'd be the flexibility in the relationship that Blair-Bush have. I mean, I doubt Howard would be man enough to stand against US on stuff like the Kyota Treaty. It just wouldn't happen. The Tories are practically full of slimeballs as is Labour. The only difference is that Labour actually have some good ideas in their manifesto.

Flexibility in the Blair/Bush relationship? there is none...For all Blair's posturing about getting some compromise out of Bush on Kyoto, what tangible gain has there been.

Howard was actually banned from visiting the Whitehouse at one point, because of his opposition to Blair. At best, relations between Bush and he would be strained, which IMO would be a very good thing. We could do with some distance from the States.

 

[el Chi]

Bollocks. As soon as he got in Howard would be just as sycophantic and submissive - it might take a little while for them to establish that, but it'd happen. Howard does exactly what is right for that moment in question.
He has very flexible opinions and principles. The man's a tw*t.

 

[GhostFox]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but I haven't read the whole thread.

To everyone in the UK, is there a noticeable conservative shift in the country right now? I just found it interesting that Tony Blair and his centrist party are facing their only signifigant opposition from the conservative party. Not only that, but both were outspoken supporters of the Iarq war.

Is the UK the first domino collapsing European Liberalism? Or is the UK really that far removed from the traditional Euorpean political spectrum?

 

[Laivasse]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but I haven't read the whole thread.

To everyone in the UK, is there a noticeable conservative shift in the country right now? I just found it interesting that Tony Blair and his centrist party are facing their only signifigant opposition from the conservative party. Not only that, but both were outspoken supporters of the Iarq war.

Is the UK the first domino collapsing European Liberalism? Or is the UK really that far removed from the traditional Euorpean political spectrum?

Not really, it's just that the only 2 parties with any real prospect of power are fairly conservative parties with fairly superficial differences, and who are often massively out of touch with the populace.

 

[GhostFox]

and who are often massively out of touch with the populace.

Why are they getting all the votes then?

 

[ComradeBadger]

The liberal democrats - where old political elephants go to die.




Voting Labour probably - even if I'm not a Blairite.

 

[Kangy]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but I haven't read the whole thread.

To everyone in the UK, is there a noticeable conservative shift in the country right now? I just found it interesting that Tony Blair and his centrist party are facing their only signifigant opposition from the conservative party. Not only that, but both were outspoken supporters of the Iarq war.

Is the UK the first domino collapsing European Liberalism? Or is the UK really that far removed from the traditional Euorpean political spectrum?

No, we're far too rooted in the past. For a long time, the Tory party was the only party who ever got elected. The party just has a lot of hereditary voters (eg. My Dad voted Tory, and he taught me...) really, and the UK is traditionally slightly Conservative anyway. Ridiculous messages have slowly tipped some of the swing voters back to Conservative hands. However, the liberal democrat party has also been growing, so I think it's just a case of Labour, Green and Independant parties losing some votes and those votes going back into Tory hands, or for the first time, Lib Dem hands.

 

[el Chi]

The differences between the Tories and Labour are seeming decreasingly superficial. New Labour moved from the left towards the centre and then slightly right of centre. Thus the Tories needed to distinguish themselves better and so they move further right and ditch their ridiculously bland, non-entity of a leader (IDS).
Howard's taking them the furthest right they've been for years.

 

[Kangy]

Shockingly enough, I actually forgot Duncan Smith's name for a bit until I saw those initials, Chi. I think that gives everyone some perspective of the impact they had before the Iraq War gave the Tories something to actually criticise in Labour.

Fox, I'll settle my point to you by saying that Howard has managed to say "Hey, voters, we're still here! Look, look at us! We're still here, but we're more conservative than ever!" and people saying "Well, they are! I thought they'd vanished off to nowhere!"

 

[Laivasse]

Why are they getting all the votes then?

People vote for Labour because they think they are the same party they were 20 years ago. For Ethnic minorities Labour has always been the traditional party to vote for, however nowadays they pass laws allowing 'terrorists' (ie. Moslems) to be locked up without trial and without evidence (or any that needs to be shown to anyone). They're about as conservative as you can get while holding a straight face nowadays.

People are considering giving their vote to the Conservatives this time around because they know the Lib Dems have no hope (that's me ).

The Lib Dems have no hope because traditionally, noone votes for them. I'll give them a chance some day when I could stomach the prospect of the ruling govt staying in power. Not this election, then.

 

[GhostFox]

People are considering giving their vote to the Conservatives this time around because they know the Lib Dems have no hope

So are you saying that many people are not voting based on issues?

I just find this interesting because I read an article in the National Post about two weeks ago talking about how if Canadians voted stictly on the issues, 70% would vote conservative. We obviously have a liberal party in power at the moment, so people aren't voting on the issues.

Is it the same situation but in reverse in the UK?

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

Morally wrong? How's that? She doesn't do anything. If she was a dictator and was sending people to their deaths every week you could say it was morally wrong, but just having a monarch isn't morally wrong. It's tradition.

Just to jump in here, having any kind of royalty is wrong (not morally). For one, the British royalty and all its functions are supported by tax payer dollars (euros whatever). Tradition should not override equality. Also, for the state to recognize someone as a noblemen (King, Prince, Duke, etc.) by birth implies they are superior. I, however, don't see anything wrong with being Knighted, since it is a position recognized by the state for service.

 

[Laivasse]

So are you saying that many people are not voting based on issues?

I just find this interesting because I read an article in the National Post about two weeks ago talking about how if Canadians voted stictly on the issues, 70% would vote conservative. We obviously have a liberal party in power at the moment, so people aren't voting on the issues.

Is it the same situation but in reverse in the UK?

I might be giving a completely skewed view (anybody feel free to step in if I am, I'm not exactly a veteran of politics), but I would definitely say people are not voting completely on issues. I know I'm not.

Some big motivating factors this time around would be, say, lack of trust in Tony Blair, the past record of the conservative party, the Lib Dems chance of success, and so forth. Cynicism has crept in in a big way since Iraq. Hardly anyone looks at politics ideologically any more. Everyone's just trying to size up the biggest bastard and keep them out.

 

[Feath]

Shockingly enough, I actually forgot Duncan Smith's name for a bit until I saw those initials, Chi.

That reminds me of that Jeffery Archer comedy thing on the BBC that was on a while back.

reporter: "And what did IDS think?"
Archer: "Who?"
Reporter: "Iain Duncan-Smith"
Archer: "Who?"