The next general election in the uk (1 Viewer)

[Red_Dave]

who do you see winning?

 

[GarzaUK]

Unless the Tories finally wise up, the Labour Party will win, Prime Minister Brown.

What do you guys think of Gordon Brown? Bit boring I think.

 

[Plain old me]

Unless the Tories finally wise up, the Labour Party will win, Prime Minister Brown.

What do you guys think of Gordon Brown? Bit boring I think.

The only reason he's so popualr is because he has yet to express his own opinions regarding...well..anything. Labour could win, but a conservative victory is much more likely this time round then last time, depending on who they choose as leader...if it isn't a moderniser their sunk.

As for the poor old LibDems...they gonna keep on dreaming.

 

[sitegod]

it will be the tories.. sadly. Blair and Labour are very unpopular at the moment, as this G8 thing failed miserably. LibDems may as well scrap their party, their a living joke. BNP, well, the country is mad... but itll definitely be Tory unless Brown pulls a mega thing out of his hat

 

[Naughty Nurse]

it will be the tories.. sadly. Blair and Labour are very unpopular at the moment, as this G8 thing failed miserably. LibDems may as well scrap their party, their a living joke. BNP, well, the country is mad... but itll definitely be Tory unless Brown pulls a mega thing out of his hat

The Tories - New Labour: can anyone spot the difference?

I'd like to see something different - but what? Lib Dems? :rofl

 

[GarzaUK]

If the Lib Dems get their policies sorted out and cemented they would be good party for the future, they have being gaining more and more seats during the election. Most Labour voters would go over to the Lib Dems before the Tories. But then again quite a few New Labour voters are conservative.
I like the Lib Dems, but then again I've always had a thing for the underdog.:smile:

A Tory government ~ shudder. After the mess they made in the 80's and 90's?

 

[Plain old me]

it will be the tories.. sadly. Blair and Labour are very unpopular at the moment, as this G8 thing failed miserably. LibDems may as well scrap their party, their a living joke. BNP, well, the country is mad... but itll definitely be Tory unless Brown pulls a mega thing out of his hat

Don't be so sure, I think anti-wars will feel more comfortable voting for Brown, the anti-war hatred seems focused entirely on Blair.

As for the BNP...*shudders*

 

[sitegod]

I agree with you on the BNP shudder. But I can see the Rt Hon David Davis PM (NOOOO) if im old enough to vote- I might vote LibDem, I might not. but I no longer have a politicalparty to support! *weep*

 

[Plain old me]

But I can see the Rt Hon David Davis PM (NOOOO)

If that happens the Tories are shot. It'll be popular with traditional conservative voters methinks, but they have them anyways. I don't think Davis will pull any more support to the party.

 

[Red_Dave]

it will be the tories.. sadly. Blair and Labour are very unpopular at the moment, as this G8 thing failed miserably. LibDems may as well scrap their party, their a living joke. BNP, well, the country is mad... but itll definitely be Tory unless Brown pulls a mega thing out of his hat

I doubt think the kind of people who are dissapointed in the G8 dessision would vote Tory . They would be a bit thick to do so because the concervatives are into free-market/free trade which goes against the ideals of campains like make poverty history. Mind you they have been useing alot of very anoying retoric to attract these people. They tend to make alot of noises about "Free and Fair trade" even though this is a completely oxymoroic phrase and what they really mean is "more free-market capatalism" bit slimey really.

Im in two minds about whether the torrys could win again. On the one hand they seam to be getting alot more seats which suggests they could be re-gaining there popularity. Yet on the other hand i go to a school in Oliver Letwins consistency but everyone i know there below the age of 30 voted lib-dem or labour so it seams to me that the conservatives dont have much suport from younger people and could fade away over the next 50 years or so.

The Libdems seam very poplular but there just let down by the first past the post system, i reckon they would have got alot more seats under Propertional Representation.

I dont know why everyone makes so much fuss about the b.n.p to be honest. Theve been around for ages in various different incarnations [National Front e.t.c] but have never got a single parliamentary seat. The only thing that worries me about them is that they waste votes and give the concervates and excuse to come up with extremely tight policies on imigration

What do people think of the Greens chances of getting any seats in westminster next time round? I thought of joining the green party for a while because they put alot of enthesis on the same areas im very keen on [development, climate change, domestic poverty e.t.c] but im not sure theres much point as theve been around for so long without making much of an impact

 

[GarzaUK]

The BNP got a seat in Oldham didnt they? In the 2001 election.

I'm all for proportional representation, our first past the post system totally rapes the third party in particular. I mean what was the difference between Labour and the Tories? 6-8%? Yet Labour has almost twice as much seats as the Tories. Its not on.

 

[Red_Dave]

The BNP got a seat in Oldham didnt they? In the 2001 election.

I.

Wasnt that a council seat? theres never been a b.n.p mp acording to wikipedia

 

[Plain old me]

I dont know why everyone makes so much fuss about the b.n.p to be honest. Theve been around for ages in various different incarnations [National Front e.t.c] but have never got a single parliamentary seat. The only thing that worries me about them is that they waste votes and give the concervates and excuse to come up with extremely tight policies on imigration

Thats true, they have been arond for ages, and have failed to secure a parliamentary seat...the reason people are getting edgy about them is because elections come and go and they keep getting more and more council seats.

I'm all for proportional representation, our first past the post system totally rapes the third party in particular. I mean what was the difference between Labour and the Tories? 6-8%? Yet Labour has almost twice as much seats as the Tories. Its not on.

Uh-huh, but the problem is proportional representation isn't hugely practical. It leaves no party in control and this isn't terribly good for effective government. I mean take the last election...a House of Commons with 35.3%Labour, 32.3% tory and 22.1% libdem? It'd be chaos.

Plus, it would give the old favorites the BNP an actual seat or two.

 

[Red_Dave]

Uh-huh, but the problem is proportional representation isn't hugely practical. It leaves no party in control and this isn't terribly good for effective government. I mean take the last election...a House of Commons with 35.3%Labour, 32.3% tory and 22.1% libdem? It'd be chaos.

Plus, it would give the old favorites the BNP an actual seat or two.

I doubt it would be choas. We,ve had minority governments before without much trouble and these days it wouldnt be that difficult to find a compromise inbetween the different partys. Coalition governments worked fine during the two world wars. There was even a deal between the three main parties at some time during the 20th century too merge together to form a coalition if it was nesscessary to keep the comunist party out. This shows that its possible for the different partys to work together if forced to. It would also be alot more democratic if you think about it because third partys would have a bigger role in things and labour would have to listen to all the differnt factions within the party.

If the b.n.p got into mainstream politics i doubt they would last for long for 3 reasons.

1The media would attack the Nick Griffins very shaddowy past thus putting people off the party

2 pretty much anyone debateing with the b.n.p would kick there ass [Can you imagine Nick Griffin on question time? he would be eaten alive:2razz: ] This would put people of the party

3 Whats happend alot in counsil seats is that the b.n.p have been voted in down to low turnout in elctions. What normally happens the next time round is that [surprise,surprise] a much higher percentage of the comunity turns up and they lose there seat. I imagine the same would happen if they got a parliamnetary seat.

Mind you some forms of P.R arent to good. The party list system the E.U uses doesnt give people alot of choice over what M.E.P they actually want. You just chose a party. Im for a Single Transferable Vote myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote]

 

[Plain old me]

I doubt it would be choas. We,ve had minority governments before without much trouble and these days it wouldnt be that difficult to find a compromise inbetween the different partys. Coalition governments worked fine during the two world wars. There was even a deal between the three main parties at some time during the 20th century too merge together to form a coalition if it was nesscessary to keep the comunist party out. This shows that its possible for the different partys to work together if forced to. It would also be alot more democratic if you think about it because third partys would have a bigger role in things and labour would have to listen to all the differnt factions within the party.

If the b.n.p got into mainstream politics i doubt they would last for long for 3 reasons.

1The media would attack the Nick Griffins very shaddowy past thus putting people off the party

2 pretty much anyone debateing with the b.n.p would kick there ass [Can you imagine Nick Griffin on question time? he would be eaten alive:2razz: ] This would put people of the party

3 Whats happend alot in counsil seats is that the b.n.p have been voted in down to low turnout in elctions. What normally happens the next time round is that [surprise,surprise] a much higher percentage of the comunity turns up and they lose there seat. I imagine the same would happen if they got a parliamnetary seat.

Mind you some forms of P.R arent to good. The party list system the E.U uses doesnt give people alot of choice over what M.E.P they actually want. You just chose a party. Im for a Single Transferable Vote myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote]

Okay, I'll admit, the chaos was exagerated...but in terms of the British model, in the last election the Libdem leader ruled out the possibility of a tory/libdem coalition in the event of a hung parliament...and with the opposition to the Iraq War I can't see them joining Labour. I'll agree that PR is far more democratic, but I just don't think it would be effective.

In terms of the BNP, you may be right, but its certianly a worrying trend that more and more seem to be considering them an option.

I'm interested to see what this Single Transferable Vote is, but the link doesn't seem to work for me.:doh

 

[Red_Dave]

Okay, I'll admit, the chaos was exagerated...but in terms of the British model, in the last election the Libdem leader ruled out the possibility of a tory/libdem coalition in the event of a hung parliament...and with the opposition to the Iraq War I can't see them joining Labour. I'll agree that PR is far more democratic, but I just don't think it would be effective.

In terms of the BNP, you may be right, but its certianly a worrying trend that more and more seem to be considering them an option.

I'm interested to see what this Single Transferable Vote is, but the link doesn't seem to work for me.:doh

Still if labour was in a minority government I imagine the lib dems would vote with them quite alot. There was a much bigger difference between the partys during the first and second world war [churchil thought a labour government would need a "Gestapo" to enforce socialism] and they govend quite effectivly.

Sorry about the link, Im not sure what happend there. Try http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/stvi.htm

 

[Plain old me]

Still if labour was in a minority government I imagine the lib dems would vote with them quite alot. There was a much bigger difference between the partys during the first and second world war [churchil thought a labour government would need a "Gestapo" to enforce socialism] and they govend quite effectivly.

Sorry about the link, Im not sure what happend there. Try http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/stvi.htm

I think that perhaps the coalition govts in the wars was more due to the fact we were fighting a war, and it was considered best if both parties had a say in it, but that may be incorrect.

STV sounds interesting, but I'm tempted to think 'if it ain't broke, why fix it?'. I know, as Garza says, it 'rapes' the libdems but it seems to have worked well so far, we elect without the need to worry that we won't be getting something else via a coalition, and it ensures a party has enough of a majority to govern effectively.

 

[Red_Dave]

I think that perhaps the coalition govts in the wars was more due to the fact we were fighting a war, and it was considered best if both parties had a say in it, but that may be incorrect.

STV sounds interesting, but I'm tempted to think 'if it ain't broke, why fix it?'. I know, as Garza says, it 'rapes' the libdems but it seems to have worked well so far, we elect without the need to worry that we won't be getting something else via a coalition, and it ensures a party has enough of a majority to govern effectively.

The reson i used the second world war and first world war was as an example that partys with very different views can work together if the feel they have to.Thats why the three main partys so readyly agreed that they would join together if nesscessary to avoid a comunist government. Another thing i didnt mention is that under the icelandic system the only way to form a government is through coalitions and its worked effectivly as far as i know.

The fact a war criminal has just been re-elected despite being very unpopular sugests are electoral system is in dire need of fixing. We are merely presented with two right of center partys and asked to chose the lesser of two evils. How is this democracy?

 

[Plain old me]

The fact a war criminal has just been re-elected despite being very unpopular sugests are electoral system is in dire need of fixing. We are merely presented with two right of center partys and asked to chose the lesser of two evils. How is this democracy?

By War Criminal I assume you are reffering to the Primeminister? It's democracy because people get to elect their representatives. Mr Blair was unpopular, yet his party maintained a majority, even in percentage terms, and thus secured a victory. This does point out another hole in our system...the fact that the real head of state in the country is completely and utterly based upon the legislature. If you view Labour as the lesser of two evils, thats your opinion, I must agree that both parties are looking more and more alike with each policy, but we'll have to see how both parties go under the new leadership. However I would've thought that having to resort to coalition governments would lead to essentially the same problem...you vote Labour...but instead get both Labour and Conservative.

 

[Red_Dave]

By War Criminal I assume you are reffering to the Primeminister? It's democracy because people get to elect their representatives. Mr Blair was unpopular, yet his party maintained a majority, even in percentage terms, and thus secured a victory. This does point out another hole in our system...the fact that the real head of state in the country is completely and utterly based upon the legislature. If you view Labour as the lesser of two evils, thats your opinion, I must agree that both parties are looking more and more alike with each policy, but we'll have to see how both parties go under the new leadership. However I would've thought that having to resort to coalition governments would lead to essentially the same problem...you vote Labour...but instead get both Labour and Conservative.

We get to elect representatives but dont have a great deal of choice. For example if i could vote in the last election my vote would be a waste of time unless voted for Jim Knight [labour], or Ed Matts [Concervative].

All the left leaning people i know voted for jim knight even though new labour cant really be described as being left wing and most of those voteing labour that i asked disliked blair but disliked Ed Matts more.

None of the other candidates had a chance of getting in. This was undemocratic in that it didnt properly represent peoples views because

1 Alot of fairly concervative people voted for jim knight due to dislike for Ed Matts

2 By voteing for jim knight many where putting blair is power despite dislikeing him [that why i prefer the u.s system you vote for your leader and your representative seperatly]

3 Those on the left had a choice of one right wing and one center [ish] candidate


At least under a coalition government elected through P.R people can actually vote for a party that represents there opinion. Even if some did vote labour and concervative there vote would give the labour party more of an influence.

 

[Plain old me]

We get to elect representatives but dont have a great deal of choice. For example if i could vote in the last election my vote would be a waste of time unless voted for Jim Knight [labour], or Ed Matts [Concervative].

All the left leaning people i know voted for jim knight even though new labour cant really be described as being left wing and most of those voteing labour that i asked disliked blair but disliked Ed Matts more.

None of the other candidates had a chance of getting in. This was undemocratic in that it didnt properly represent peoples views because

1 Alot of fairly concervative people voted for jim knight due to dislike for Ed Matts

2 By voteing for jim knight many where putting blair is power despite dislikeing him [that why i prefer the u.s system you vote for your leader and your representative seperatly]

3 Those on the left had a choice of one right wing and one center [ish] candidate

I understand where you're coming from, but I would argue this is still democracy, you still get to choose, even if it's just the case the majority vote against you.

I have to say though that the idea of STV sounds more and more interesting, but I wonder how you think it would effect the makeup of parliament?

I completely agree with No. 2, we need to elect our Head of State directly.

At least under a coalition government elected through P.R people can actually vote for a party that represents there opinion. Even if some did vote labour and concervative there vote would give the labour party more of an influence.

They can vote for a party that represents their opinion, and contribute to that parties victory, but having considered and voted for that party I would want that party in charge, not a mix of that parties values and policies and anothers.

 

[josh]

Labour are in power and they only got 35% of the last vote. Time for proportional representation plz

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Yes, I also think it's time to change our system, and give some parties beyond New "Labour" and The Tories some influence. It might just make politicians take the whole thing a bit more seriously.

 

[Kelzie]

Okay, I'll admit, the chaos was exagerated...but in terms of the British model, in the last election the Libdem leader ruled out the possibility of a tory/libdem coalition in the event of a hung parliament...and with the opposition to the Iraq War I can't see them joining Labour. I'll agree that PR is far more democratic, but I just don't think it would be effective.

In terms of the BNP, you may be right, but its certianly a worrying trend that more and more seem to be considering them an option.

I'm interested to see what this Single Transferable Vote is, but the link doesn't seem to work for me.:doh

Maybe not chaos, so much as more like America? It is very hard to get laws passed here, because the houses are so divided, which is what Britain would have with proportional representation. It creates an artificial majority, which can be helpful sometimes, unless it is abused. I find it interesting that the only party that calls for proportional representation is the one that's not in power. Labour was calling for it too, before they won, with Conservatives shooting it down. Now the situation's reversed.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Maybe not chaos, so much as more like America?

Is there a difference? (Just kidding ...)

It is very hard to get laws passed here, because the houses are so divided, which is what Britain would have with proportional representation. It creates an artificial majority, which can be helpful sometimes, unless it is abused. I find it interesting that the only party that calls for proportional representation is the one that's not in power. Labour was calling for it too, before they won, with Conservatives shooting it down. Now the situation's reversed.

Wish just goes to show what a bunch of hypocrites most politicians are!

However, if we had a different system here, perhaps Phoney Bliar would have to behave himself a bit better!