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

It's no joke. It took the Labour party nearly two decades to realize that you can't get your foot in the door of 10 Downing Street without stopping off at Vidal Sassoon and Savile Row first. Wearing a duffel-coat or being bald and ginger are pure poison in key marginals.

I judge political parties on the strength of the adverts they put out, if they don't want to be judged on that, then they needn't put out those adverts.

I don't think that the electorate or human race has put out adverts declaiming their views on something, in the way that political parties do.

So I don't feel the two are quite as directly comparable as you seem to think.

Instead of watching their adverts, Kaz, why don't you try reading their manifestos?

RF

I think the electorate aren't as stupid as politicians, or Mycroft, thinks they are. It does seem rather trivial which party gets in. Who has the time to read all the newspapers and watch all the reports anyway?

I also think that a lot of people would appreciate an honest politician.

Have read their manifestos on the internet regularly, and one year spent money on buying every manifesto available in book form, that cost a bit.

Was also involved in one of the political parties set up to fight the first London election a few years ago when the London mayor came back again. So don't try to accuse me of only basing my decisions on adverts. Adverts are a good start though. Have also worked for a national party and am now begining to get involved in working for another one.

Any other questions or assumptions?

I can only base my opinions on what you post, Kaz. You're the one who said that you based your opinions on adverts. If you'd said "I've read all the manifestos, worked for...yada yada yada", then I'd probably have responded differently. But you led yourself into that one.

Which is one way to make a cheap point, I suppose.

RF

I research a lot, but in the end, if an insulting advert has been brought out, I will not vote for that party.

Not making a cheap point at all, adverts make the decision easy, but there was no reason to assume that I do not research.

>>I judge political parties on the strength of the adverts they put out, if they don't want to be judged on that, then they needn't put out those adverts.<<

Kaz, I judge electorates on the governments they elect, if they don't want to be judged on that, they needn't elect those governments.


>>I think the electorate aren't as stupid as politicians, or Mycroft, thinks they are. It does seem rather trivial which party gets in. Who has the time to read all the newspapers and watch all the reports anyway?

I also think that a lot of people would appreciate an honest politician.<<

BouncyBitInTheMiddle, the electorate get what they vote for. If people don't want trivial differences between government and do want honest politicians, how can it be anything other than stupid to vote for what we actually get?

Last time we had an honest politician as a party leader was a chap called Iain Duncan Smith. Go figure.

Kaz, you're contradicting yourself. When you've made up your mind what you believe, let us know.

RF

No I do not believe I am contradicting myself, decisions arn't always taken on the basis of one fact and sometimes there can be a fact which over-rides all else. What is the problem with that?

You people seem to think that research has to be with an end or decision in sight, maybe some of us research simply to learn more about people, political parties and politics.

What’s 1 plus 1? 2?

No, it’s 10. I was counting in binary. Hah! Bet you didn’t know that! That’s because I withheld that information from you.

That’s precisely what you do in this thread, Kaz. I’m not a mindreader. If you say you’re basing you’re decisions on adverts, then that’s what I assume you’re doing. A fair assumption, IMHO. You then turn around and say “hah! I’ve read all the manifestos! Waddya think about that?” I say, well, that’s an easy way to score a cheap point. You then go back to the adverts argument. I say, make your mind up. You say, “No, there’s something else I haven’t told you yet…”

So, Kaz, please give us the definitive version.


RF

As we seem to be having a problem communicating and I really can't see why, I think I will just unsubscribe and stop confusing you any longer. I have no idea why you feel I am doing this on purpose as I am not, but you appear to believe that I am trying to catch you out. As that is not my intention, I shall go do something which doesn't involve other people, as it appears I am confusing and playing with everyones minds today. Non-intentionally though.

Toodle-oo.

RF

instead of judging them on their manifestos which are wishlists, not promises, judge them on their past records which is why I will never vote Tory

i think we need a new party altogether. one that doesn't have past issues to deal with or shake off the stigma.

the only party i like the look of in that their past doesn't show up like a sore thum is the Lib Dems.

a new party without any hinderences to shape their manifesto so as to allow a fresh perspective on the future of Britain is what we need in my opinion. looking at the past of a party only holds them back when you lay the resulting expectations on them.

I am considering voting LD if only so we get electoral reform, but only if it doesn't let the Tories in.

What is the point of judging a party on its manifesto? They all seem happy enough to dump what they promised at the drop of a hat anyway. Past performance is also no gaurantee of future behaviour - who would have thought that a labour government would do half the things they have done?

I doubt I could ever vote tory but that is their past performance and current rhetoric. I am so disappointed with 'new' labour that I doubt I'll vote for them. I won't vote lib dem just because they aren't the tories or labour.

*sigh* looks like I will be spoiling my ballot paper next time...

The truest words Blair ever spoke were in a conference speech a few years ago:

"The choice is not between the Labour government of your dreams and the Labour government of reality, but between a Labour government and a Conservative government"

In other words, vote for us, at least we're not them. The sad thing is, it's good advice.

Having been one that lived through the Labour Governments of the 1970s which brought the country to virtual bankruptcy and led to the Chancellor of the Exchequer having to borrow from the IMF and consequently having the IMF dictate Economic Policy, I would be reluctant to vote Labour. It was these disasters that led to the Conservative party being in power for so long. Would you really have wanted Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock as Prime Minister? It would have just been more of the same.

It wasn't until Tony Blair came along and dumped the socialist policies that got us into that mess that Labour ever had any chance of being elected.

Donald

Interesting....

So, to make some observations:

Some people use the selfish "how much will it cost me?" method as their deciding factor. And RF reminds us that we should never underestimate people's stupidity

Others use the hairstyle of the propspective PM (but, as has been pointed out, image is an important factor )

Some read all the manifestoes (a marathon task! my admiration!), others just the ads.

Some vote xyz becasue they've always voted xyz.

Some go on past performance.


Carry on!