h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Indeed but there was a very different political atmosphere then.

Firstly there were schisms and cleavages within society that simply dont exist now. A burdgeoning and increasingly activist working class population was begining to start to assert its authority. As that population grew not only did the moral case for giving them the vote become harder to ignore (carrot). The likelheed that they both could and would have done something to change the system (revolution) if reforms didn't happen were very real (stick).

The reforms made in the 19th Were the minimum needed to ensure as much of the status quo as possible remained.

I would say that 21c Britiain is a very different crewature from 20c Britain. I dont think there are new and massive social cleavages that are totally changing the poilitical landscape in a way the system must adapt or die, I also dont think there is likely to be a revolution because the Lib Dems dont get a fair crack of the whip under the FPP system.

Did anyone else see the survey the FT did putting Conservatives ahead. This really sirprised me. IT is clearly going to be a lot closer than many people expeted for proof of this look at the way The Sun hasn't said who it will be supporting yet.

I did I think all the coverage I saw yesterday pointed out the poll putting the tories ahead used a selective population for its figures.

It counted only those who were "certain" to vote tory, labour or lib dem.

what you can conclude from that is that the tory base is more energised and prepared to vote, where the Labour majority seems to be secured on a more fragile foundation of swing voters.

Thats got to put the wind up TB, not because it shows the Tories ahead but because he knows he's lost trust over Iraq and the variety of scandles that flow from it - thosw swing voters are the one who want to give the government and him a kicking - and it might cost him the elkection if they swing their vote.

The election therefore will be an appeal to those swing voters.

True it was a selective study but it did put turn out at 55% which will I imagine be fairly close to the actual turn out.

I think a lot of people are finding themselves in 2legs's position (I bet someone will make a joke out of that). They can't vote Labour because of reasons x, y, z, t, l, q and p, and they can't vote Con because of reasons xx, yy, zz, tt, ll, qq and pp. I am hoping that enough people will think outside the 'box' and go for a non-major party instead of forcing themselves to decide between two evils (if that's how they see it).

Watching PMQ's just now (help me I'm a political masochist) I was revelling in the idea that appeals to voter to abandon Labour will effective enough to work, but they won't go to the tories, instead they'll be spread around the lib dems and other smaller parties.

It's a nice thought.

As I'm still recovering from the Thatcher years, (shudder) I know how I'll vote. But then I'm a pragmatist!

I don't think there's really much of an overlap between modern Liberal Democrats and the classical Liberals around at the beginning of the 20th century.

Not just a matter of the time that's passed, but also the extension of the electorate. I think the group that would have been represented by old liberalism would now make up the chunk of the Tories who are focused on cutting back taxation (as opposed to those who are focused on being intolerant).

I don't think anyone can seriously base their vote on the Iraq war.

There were afterall some questionable reasons to go to war and some very good reasons not to go to war. Somebody made the decision and that somebody was T. Blair (and yes i know that he couldn't make the decision on his own, but lets face it, everyone blames him)

The way that the Labour party are campaigning at the moment says it all. They know that Tony is a lost cause so they are pairing him up with Gordon Brown, whose ability with the budget will win them the election, without doubt.

There simply isn't any choice, whilst Iraq was a terrible thing to happen, we must now think of our own economy, our own country. There can be no doubting that Gordon Brown is the best man to look after our buget at the moment. All we have to do is play the waiting game, until Tony does the right thing and stands down.

It isn't just an issue of whether or not you supported the war it's a question of trust.
We're electing someone who will have enormous power over our lives and so the fact that many believe Blair misled us over the war means he is seen as untrustworthy and that is a reason not to trust him with our future.

Slightly off point ~but did anyone else see PM's questions when Howard asked the Labour backbenchers how many would put a picture of Blair on the election leaflets and only a handful stuck their hands up.

I totally agree, he certainly does not have my trust. Unfortunately there simply isn't a viable alternative to the Labour party. The Conservatives are a shambles and the Lib Dems are several elections away from being anything like ready to govern.

So, after weighing up the pro's and cons i have decided that i am going to cast my vote for finacial policies rather than leaders at this time.

oh come on please let's get real. It's a choice between Howard and Blair. I can't believe what short memories people have, Doesn't anybody remember what sort of extreme right wing Home Secretary Howard was?

The memory of Howard in office is a *very* powerful motivating factor for me.

I dislike Labour, IMHO they have let me down in so many ways, they have let down working class people.

However they cannot go any further to the Right. Howard can and will if he gets power.

I am always slightly taken aback to remember Howard was home secretary not so long ago. (usually in discussion about Jamie Bulger as it happens - Howard made the illegal decision to extend the sentences of the two convicted children to satisfy public demand outside the court. I seem to remember that spat went all the way up to the european courts.)

I'm not voting *for* Howard. (and the Iraq war is a motivating factor again there - her majesties loyal opposition earning the keep) Just as I am not voting *for* Blair.

I'm sorry im_a_laughing_gnome, I don't agree. TB stood up in Parliament in front of all the wavering MP's and declared contrary to the intelligence he'd received and with absolute certainty and clarity of conviction, that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be launched with 45 minutes." On that basis he secured to vote to commit troops for as we know now a complete falsity.

A vote for Howard or Blair rewards that decision and I for one am not going to associate myself through my vote with returning Blair or the complict MP's to government or opposition.

For that decision how many have died?
If that does not deserve punishment at the ballot box what does?

"It isn't just an issue of whether or not you supported the war it's a question of trust. We're electing someone who will have enormous power over our lives and so the fact that many believe Blair misled us over the war means he is seen as untrustworthy and that is a reason not to trust him with our future."

An interesting point to me here in the US. The Bush administration "sold" the Iraq war to the American people (and press) on the basis of (non-existent) WMD's ("The Sky is Falling!") and a "coalition of the willing". OK, France, Germany, Russia, etc. were against it, but that is "Old Europe" and besides, they had lucrative contracts with Hussein. In particular, England and the ever-popular Tony Blair were with us. At the time, I personally found that reassuring.

In spite of his claim of a mandate (actually a narrow re-election, a "wartime" president normally gets substantial support), Bush is having serious "trust" problems. His Social Security plan ("The Sky is Falling! Again!") is going nowhere, his attempt to overturn state courts on the Schiavo right-to-die case is seen by 80% of Americans as politically motivated, and his overall rating is about 45%, half his post-9/11 numbers. Although he seems as smug as ever , the attention span of the American public may not be as short as he thinks. Of course, he can't run again, but the other Republicans ...

I'm voting Labour. We don't have a presidential system in the UK. I couldn't live with myself if the Tories got back in!

Blair will probably step down shortly after labour get in (if they do indeed get in) so the fact that many son't trust Blair isn't a major reason not to back labour. For that reason I am leaning towards voting labour

I am voting against Labour as well. Not just Blair.

Right if the Tories get in I vote we get a new thingite warlord!

Ref Steve Kay's Post

You are quite right to say that we are electing someone who will have enormous power over our lives. Look at the mini-cabinet business in the lead up to the Iraq war, when many of Blairs cabinet were as uninformed as us.Note too that he doesn't mention Iraq now, unless questioned.

Labour have opted for a Presidential style of government, but I think I am right in saying that our PM has more REAL power than The U S President, OK Geeeorge W is in charge of the Armed Forces , but he has to demonstrate to the Congress and the Senate that something is RIGHT. Our PM just says it is right because I say it is right! Take care with your choice then.

Novo