Election 2005

I wouldn't vote for any of them - only Labour or Conservative will ever have a chance and these days they're almost indistinguishable...and having seen at first hand this week the state of secondary education for the masses in my area I can guarantee that the next generation will be just as apathetic (or even more so) than the last when it comes to voting...other than Pop Idol that is. But then again isn't that a situation that those who 'govern' us are eager to engineer?

bringing the thread back up because your election is in two days and for what it sounds like, this is the first election in years where results are not as clearly predictable.

~ public radio here is playing sound bites of labour party members who are angry or disheartened with blair.

commentary is that it's the middle and upper classes that are the most vocal about their misgivings with blair but the blue collar vote will stay labour.

some of the commentary says there are cities where there isn't a single election poster hung; that one wouldn't know an election was happening unless a tv were turned on.

also heard a little bit of the debate btwn blair and howard on the BBC.

is the general consensus around with your family and friends to vote or ...?

If you've got a parliamentary system ,what are the factors leading it to become a 2 party system (and by 2 party system, I mean what Chomsky meant-- one party, the business party, with a liberal and a conservative wing)?

And what are these other parties platforms (i.e., lib-dem, BNP, etc.)?

I will be spoiling my ballot paper on Thursday.

Not because I feel morally obliged to participate in the political process, but because if EVERYONE spoiled their ballot papers, the world political model of individual states operating for themselves would...

I used to tear myself to pieces in trying to convince people that there is only so much that one person's vote could achieve with first-past-the-post, in that voting for your favourite party's candidate would more often than not be a wasted vote in they didn't have a realistic chance of overtaking the MP.

I'd perhaps be trying to convince that by helping UKIP, the core support of the Tories could be fractioned in the way that the Lib Dems/Labour/Greens support has been for some time, before the introduction of Respect and 'Socialist' off-shoot parties as well.

But would any of these parties ever be able to do anything to stop international companies from making redundant thousands of people, just for a financial quick-fix?

George Mombiot's interview on Newsnight in early 2003 gave me a much more fundamental insight on what has to happen on a far more radical scale for the world be one peaceful, embraced and loving planet, rather than just a change of a few G8 governments.

Empress Touch wrote:

George Mombiot's interview on Newsnight in early 2003 gave me a much more fundamental insight on what has to happen on a far more radical scale for the world be one peaceful, embraced and loving planet, rather than just a change of a few G8 governments.

More of the same can be found in Monbiots Age of Consent, a pretty good read.

Empress Touch wrote: I will be spoiling my ballot paper on Thursday.

forgive me, but is "spoiling" your ballot paper mean that you're not going to vote? not familiar with that phrase and i've seen it on some of the posts; it's a little unclear in context with what all else is posted.

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

And what are these other parties platforms (i.e., lib-dem, BNP, etc.)?

the scotsman has brief profiles of the various parties

http://election.scotsman.com/

Thanks luv

got another for ya - http://news.sky.com/election/ i'll bookmark this at work tomorrow and keep an eye on things

Do they have elections in the UK?

I voted for ROCKET MICK

Now don't start a trend, he'd end up with a job.

nice one

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Now don't start a trend, he'd end up with a job.

Just when i thought things couldn't get any WORSE!

Yes, of course the electoral system is a joke. In fact, so much of a joke that in England, where 528 seats were contested, the Tories actually got more votes.

Over the next few weeks and months, i will be conducting a study into turnout and the phenomena that is tactical voting. Although it obviously wont be widely read, and will probably end up stating the bleeding obvious i.e. the current electoral system is a joke, it should go someway to explaining why people dont vote. I have pretty good ideas already.

Oh and Conor, i am surprised at your cynicism. And sadly you are incorrect.

On a national level, a majority of people did vote. 61% of those registered got off their arses and exercised their democratic privilege. although this is only up 2% on the 59% that bothered in the 2001 election. a majority of people DONT vote in European and Local Elections, although there was a slight rise last year in the European Elections, General Elections always see a much higher turnout. In fact, before 2001, Turnout had always been above 70%

Uncle Liam wrote: Oh and Conor, i am surprised at your cynicism. And sadly you are incorrect.

On a national level, a majority of people did vote. 61% of those registered got off their arses and exercised their democratic privilege. although this is only up 2% on the 59% that bothered in the 2001 election. a majority of people DONT vote in European and Local Elections, although there was a slight rise last year in the European Elections, General Elections always see a much higher turnout. In fact, before 2001, Turnout had always been above 70%

"61% of those registered got off their arses and exercised their democratic privilege" - does that mean 61% of the populace or 61% who are actually registered?

In any case, I either said or meant a majority of my contempories (18-25 year olds) - not an absolute majority. I think, although am not sure, its an absolute minority for people here in Ireland turning up for local and European elections, although not for nationals.

What way will the EU constitution go Liam? Seems to be the norm now in our "democracy" that if you vote against a treaty, the government will throw it back at you and say "wrong answer - try again". It happened here with Nice, and both Blair and Chiraq say the same thing will happen when the EU vote runs in the UK as it is in France.

Its nice to see Blair have his majority crushed. Andrew Rawnsley is talking about him (and Brown when the time comes) being a "hostage to the far left" - but I reckon that’s taking it a bit far. PFIs and NHS part privatisation the likes probably wont run through parliament so smoothly in future, nor will another Iraq /Afghanistan / Iran? Pity the Tories gained instead of the Lib-Dems – this will only add to the rather dubious “don’t vote against Labour” arguments put forward by the likes of Polly Toynbee. Its also a pity to see the Greens and the SSP do so poorly – even though the SSP is a campaigning party, it would’ve been nice to see them do well.

Surely the moment of the night had to be Reg Keys speech in Sedgefield. Whatever your opinions on Iraq, Blair should meet families of dead troops and meet the wounded/paralysed. Nice to see Gorgeous George get a seat too. Im no fan of the Respect coalition, and have pretty big concerns about the MAB, but he can sure as hell hold an audience. Any coalition with religious reactionaries ahead of a progressive alliance is a step too far for a socialist in my opinion – I never thought the Cliffites could be that opportunistic.

And Howard fucked off. Hurrah for that. His campaign was nothing short of Racist. “Are you thinking what we’re thinking” thankfully not.

Uncle Liam wrote: Yes, of course the electoral system is a joke. In fact, so much of a joke that in England, where 528 seats were contested, the Tories actually got more votes.

Over the next few weeks and months, i will be conducting a study into turnout and the phenomena that is tactical voting. Although it obviously wont be widely read, and will probably end up stating the bleeding obvious i.e. the current electoral system is a joke, it should go someway to explaining why people dont vote. I have pretty good ideas already.

There may be dissatisfaction with Blair over Iraq and the relationship with the USA but the majority of people vote according to how they feel about domestic issues. People only vote to change a Government. The turnout was low because people are generally happy with what they've got, those that are unhappy don't see a viable alternative.

Come on Conor. Reg Keys coming 4th in Tony Blairs constituency is harldy 'moment of the night'. Especially when got 4000 votes, i.e. 20000 less than blair.

If independents success is the measure of 'moment of the night' then the clear winner is dr. richard taylor holding onto wyre forest, with peter law a close second.

61% of those registered to vote is a relatively accurate figure. i think over 95% of people are registered to vote. That doesnt include those who are excuded from voting, which constitutes a totally insignificant figure.

and how was Michael Howards campaign racist? This one has never been explained to me.

Georgr Galloway getting a seat, and his reaction, was nothing short of a disgrace. George Galloway, albeit brilliantly, exploited the muslim distrust of blair for own personal gain. Now he goes on record and says he's quitting that seat at the next election so they can have someone "of their own origin." Seems as though Galloway still has that secret agenda.

As for the EU constitution, well its not going anywhere. Despite the polls, i still cant see the French going for it. Over here, well, it must be remember that a referendum is only an advisory tool, it hold no legal constitutional significance. I personally dont think we'll have a referendum on it. at least not while blairs prime minister, because he'll never win it.

BIGINOIL wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: Yes, of course the electoral system is a joke. In fact, so much of a joke that in England, where 528 seats were contested, the Tories actually got more votes.

Over the next few weeks and months, i will be conducting a study into turnout and the phenomena that is tactical voting. Although it obviously wont be widely read, and will probably end up stating the bleeding obvious i.e. the current electoral system is a joke, it should go someway to explaining why people dont vote. I have pretty good ideas already.

There may be dissatisfaction with Blair over Iraq and the relationship with the USA but the majority of people vote according to how they feel about domestic issues. People only vote to change a Government. The turnout was low because people are generally happy with what they've got, those that are unhappy don't see a viable alternative.

I'll go along with this as well. Low turnout reflects two things, a disenchantment with the system, and a satisfaction with the status quo. The economy is doing well at the moment. and what do people care about? As sad as it sounds, people care more about how much there mortgage is and how much money is in their bank accounts rather than some poor chap dying in iraq and his father. The Tories have been dead since the mid 90's when blair moved labour to the centre/centre right, occupying tradition tory ground and forcing the tories to move right. So who do those centre right voters go for? Well, they dont like the direction of the tory party so not them. They dont like Blair, and would be distrustful of a future brown government, so they dont vote Labour, and the Lib Dems are now a centre/centre left party, so they dont vote them.

If you actually read my post, you would see that I thought Reg Keys speech was moment of the night. The expression on Blair’s face was incredible. He is usually really professional as a politician, but he looked mightily uncomfortable there.

As I said, I have little time for Galloway, but it would have been much easier for him to say little about the war, toe the line, and hold his (comfortable) seat in Scotland than to come out against the War, have his name smeared, and overturn a 10000 majority with the help of the MAB and some Cliffites.

Personally, I consider his rhetoric quite boring, and really don’t have that much time for the man. His opportunistic behaviour is breathtaking, but, like all elections – this is a choice between bad and worse. Oona King voted for War, voted for 100,000 + deaths, and paid with her seat. Alongside Georges opportunism, her policies are pretty grotesque. If Muslims (or indeed anyone else) dont like her for it, and they want parliamentary representation for it, they surely they are entitled to it?

The Tories ran a campaign based on reinforcing the rather vague and inaccurate perceptions of people about issues such as immigration. “Its not racist to put controls on immigration – are you thinking what we are thinking” was clearly an appeal to racist sentiment. The facts about immigration are that:

There are controls on immigration Immigrants pay more in tax and national insurance than they take in benefits Many industries would collapse without immigrant labour. Nobody – and no political party of note said it was racist to impose limits on immigration

Unlike the other “are you thinking what were thinking” posters I saw, the immigration one had no essential point. The posters pertaining to MRSA and hospital superbugs made reference to the fact that these bugs exist, and the state should keep hospitals clean “It cant be that hard to keep hospitals clean” went the tagline, although when you cut spending and privatise cleaning services, maybe it is – but I digress. In the immigration posters, the underhand message was “you can assign any prejudice to our campaign, and we won’t distance ourselves from it”.

Its only 3 decades since a Tory slogan was “If you want a ni**er as a neighbour – vote Labour”. The gist of Tory policies are the same. Play up to unfounded prejiduce, divide and rule. Gypsies, Ethnic and Religious minorities, the long term unemployed, unmarried mothers, troubled kids. The most vunerable and downtrodden in society are the targets of the attacks – those with plenty and the means to look after themselves need “incentives” and “relief”.

Howards campaign was a reaction to Blairs centre-right stance. He knew he couldn’t beat him, and decided to get the hard core Tory vote out with hard right rhetoric, and limit the perceived damage, keeping the machine turning until the next election, and hopefully a Labour fuck-up. The fact that the Tories don’t even bother with the centre ground could show a progressive consensus in Britain – or a radically rightwing shift in Labour. I think it’s a little of the former and a lot of the latter

A tory campaign three decades ago means nothing. I still fail to see how moving the right is rascist. The 'are you thinking what we're thinking' was not an appeal to the hard right. It was a genuine, extremely naive, populist, but certianly not racist, attempt to claim back the vote that Blair had taken in 1997.

This is Racism

The Tory election campaign was very racist.

Continued references to the need to "curb and control the flow of immigrants into the UK" and the deliberate blurring of the distinctions between asylum, the legitimate transfer of labour, illegal economic migration and "people smuggling" do nothing to help to define or address the issues.

This is the worst kind of racism; making an enemy of vunerable people from different cultures by unfairly implying that 'they' are to blame for 'our' problems.

It would be bad enough if the Tories were stupid enough to believe that this sort of contribution was helpful to the debate. The fact that they used this sort of rhetoric merely to further the aims of their election campaign is horrific.

At the present time the UK is enjoying a period of relative posterity. When politicians start using this kind of tactic in less austere times, the results can be horrific.

That was the B.I.O. VE Day lecture.

The “are you thinking what were thinking” posters generally had a point.

e.g. Tories will clean hospitals to stop MRSA e.g. Tories will give cops even more power to reduce crime etc…..

The difference here, is that the immigration poster had no point, other than to appease the racist sentiment of some of those voters whose views on asylum are based on racial, or other prejudice.

Im not saying Howard is personally a racist, nor the Tories, nor all their voters, but the point is that those posters, coupled with Howard’s campaign were appealing to the nationalist/racist vote. I heard Howard on telly saying that the best way to stop racism is to control immigration. By Howard’s estimation, the way to get rid of the crime, is to get rid of the victim. Instead of attacking the basis and the people behind racist attacks, he claimed the best way to reduce them was by reducing the amount of immigrants.

By this logic, the best way to reduce pedestrian deaths isn’t to stop those in speeding cars, but ban walking. Do you see the absurdity of it all?

I was sickened to see Howard on Newsnight with nothing better to talk about with weeks to go before the election but a few gypsies. His attack on them was disgusting. They look different, are poor, (for the most part) Irish, have their own way of life, and offend most peoples bourgeois sensibility – the perfect group for Tory attack.

Racism at an official level is rarely anything but underhand. When politicians – or anyone else starts talking about healthy human beings as being a problem or a scourge, we are all in trouble.