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

Some observations

New Labour is not a socialist party (sadly).

New Labour is at best a social democratic party.

Sadly T Blair is a Christian Democrat by action and utterance - hence his regular conflicts with his back benchers.

We sadly get not only the government but also the media we as a society deserve! It is a sad reflection on our society then that we have not only New Labour but also M Howard's version of the Conservatives, the tabloid press, ITV and the progressively dumbed down BBC!

Manifestos are wish lists - nothing more nothing less!

We and the rest of Europe are rapidly heading down the US political route where corporations and their lobbyists have more influence than the electorate.

Pip Pip

Ian Duncan Smith honest? Hmm, he seemed the same as all the other politicians to me.

The Lib Dems don't have a record of badly managed stuff in the recent past probably only because they haven't been in power in the recent past. The Social Democrats have of course never held power (except possibly as part of Labour governments?). The Liberals messed up a lot in the 19th century. Gladstone's invasion of Egypt was probably more scandalous than any Tory Imperialistic venture for a start.

As for the electorate getting the government they vote for, I'm going to be original and blame the system . Even the 3rd largest party seriously feels the effects of tactical voting and non-proportional representation. None of the parties smaller than them stands any chance really.

The smaller parties don't stand a chance because they don't have any support. What's undemocratic about that?

A party that polled nearly 400,000 votes has no representation at Westminster. That's twice as many as Plaid Cywmru, who have 4 seats.

That's representative democracy for ya!

RF

First you say small parties haven't a chance, then you say they're over-represented...

Nah, that was Bouncy...

I was merely pointing out the anomolies thrown up by the first-past-the-post system.

Let's not even consider the Kidderminster hospital party!

RF

>>Nah, that was Bouncy...<<

I know, but I like to treat everyone exactly the same, and it makes pointing out inconsistencies a breeze.

There are defects in all systems: 400,000 votes wouldn't be enough to get into parliament under most PR systems either.

Or the smaller parties don't have any support because they don't stand a chance.

I suppose i really cant contribute to this thread, since its mostly Brit politics, which I know little about besides that it exists.

*sits back, watches quietly*

Oh please, feel free to comment! It was meant to be a question on "what influences your vote", rather than an analysis of any particular party or policies, but hey....

Me, I've never voted Labour or Conservative in my life, even though I grew up in a part of the United Kingdom, because - get this - they didnt field candidates where I lived.

Howzat for enfranchisement?

Donald

Yes I would've wanted Foot or Kinnock as PM
Either would've been better than Blair who is the only person whos ever managed to make me consider voting anything other than Labour

>> Yes I would've wanted Foot or Kinnock as PM <<

So you like the idea of Britain being in debt to the IMF, having its economic policy dictated to by the IMF, rubbish piling up in the street, dead bodies piling up, more winters of discontent. Because that is what would have happened.

Thats why neither Micheal Foot or Neil Kinnock won an election. They showed no signs of modifying the policies of James Callaghan which got us into the mess in the first place.

If Tony Blair and New Labour had followed in the footsteps of Neil Kinnock and not made a sharp step to the right there would still be a Conservative government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/england/pwar_strikes_winter_discontent.shtml

Donald

Actually Callaghan was quite right-wing for a Labour leader. Foot then took the party sharply leftwards and it was Kinnock who began either making the party reelectable or dragging it sharply rightwards depending on point of view. Any of them or John Smith would've been vastly preferable to Thatcher in my opinion. I remember both the Winter of Discontent and the Thatcher years and I know which caused more hardship in the areas I lived in during the period.