Does anybody actually care about the election results?

I care about the election and I am interested in the politics of it, but which ever party wins it will be either tories or labour, and frankly I think they are both as bad as each other.

What difference will it make?

 

Very little. Count yourself lucky that as "bad" as they may seem, there are countless despots out there worse.... Qaddafi, Mugabe, Bush, etc...

 

If you feels so strongly about certain issues there is an additional think you could do, go and talk to your local MPs and tell them how you feel. Why do we have vote for the members of the main parties all the time? Maybe we need a new group of people to be our MPs like the indenpendent candidates which stands for a single issues you feels right about.

 

There is really only one issue I feel very passionate about, and that is I strongly disagree with the privatisation of the buses (I hope there are no stagecoach shareholders here ).

I also think there should be tougher sentances for petty crime but then so do 99% of the population.

I have thought about one day standing for election at least as an independant counciler, I was considering going for elections at the student union, the president told me to stand but I didn't really have enough time or have the confidence to believe I could win.

One day though I may just do it.

 

Whoa there fella, there not that bad we could be alot worse off.

Will it make a difference? Well I use use to think not, but in my case the older I get the more I think it does. The government has small and subtle effect on all sorts of things that all add up to the bigger picture. The problem (if it is a problem) is that the boundries between the two main parties has blurred somewhat, its been said before that Tony would be an excellet tory MP.

The thing that bothers me is that its all become so image led, its a personality contest more than anything and I firmly blame this on Blair, Mandy and the rest of his Oxford cronies, it was a sad day when John Smith turned turtle, in more ways than one.

 

if you're in a marginal then you have some influence on who gets in. if you're on the 'wrong side' of a non marginal then you have no influence whatsoever. once the election is over you have absolutely no influence anyway as there is no real mechanism for the people to continue to steer policy - and as we all know the vote catcher policies go out the window once power is secured.

that's the illusion that's democracy. get me in as dictator...

 

Indeed. As HL Mencken wrote:

'The theory behind representative government is that superior men--or at all
events, men not inferior to the average in ability and integrity--are chosen
to manage the public business, and that they carry on this work with
reasonable intelligence and honesty. There is little support for that theory
in the known facts...'

'A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to
get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a
streetwalker.'

'The typical lawmaker of today is a man devoid of principle--a mere counter
in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to
him he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology, or cannibalism.'

On the other hand, he also wrote:

'Governments are like diapers. They need to be changed frequently, and for the same reasons'.

 

"Tony Blair PM" is an anagram of "I'm Tory Plan B"

 

Well, if it ends up a hung parliament with Labour having the most number of seats and requiring a coalition with the Lib Dems in order to form a majority government then it could make a difference. If the Lib Dems stand their ground they could insist on a system of proportional representation for future elections as part of any deal and then the UK might actually end up with a fair and democratic electoral system rather than one where it's psosible for half the votes cast to count for nothing. If you don't believe me consider the following (extreme) scenario:

Labour gets 51% of the vote in every constituency. That would give Labour every seat in the house, all 650 of them even though 49% of the electorate voted for someone else. OK, it's an extreme example but it does show that only parties with concentrated regional support (traditionally Labour and the Tories) get a large number of seats. Parties with more evenly spread out support (like the Lib Dems) do much worse in relation to their national poll percentage (they got 17% of the vote and only 8% of the seats in 2001).

IMO a PR type system would also encourage more people to vote and take an interest because they'd know their vote wouldn't be wasted, as is the case currently for all votes for losing candidates.

Michael.

 

This would not be voted into law. The only way it could happen would be if Labout instituted a three line whip on its own MPs in favour of PR - a system the Labour party is not in favour of.
Something of this constitutional importance would have to be a free vote, and the Lib Dems would lose because the vast majority of Tory and Labour MPs simply do not want PR and the kind of Italian style centerist bedhopping mishmash that would entail

 

Now THAT'S funny!!!! Classic. ...and true.

If Lib Dem SERIOUSLY think they can bring in PR, I'm up for voting for them. As far as I can tell, the tories are sunk anyway, and Labour are heading for a fall when the property boom bubble bursts (which it HAS to now that so few areas are affordable for first time buyers). Let's face it - whichever party gets in is going to have to wear a hard hat 'cos the crap's going to RAIN down soon enough...

 

I think a lot of people including my parents will hate for me saying this, but in universities a lot of conversation is on the lines of there has to be a property burst.

Where I live in its now costing £200k for a 3 bed terrace house, I remember only ten years ago my parents having a mortage of £60k and still having negative equality in the house.

They have made about £150k profit form it in 5 years. So I think areas like mine will be hit first (hopefully). The problem with my area is I like the place, I was bought up here, my life is based here. So idealy I would like to live buy a house round here. The problem is its had what is known in Manchester as the Didsbury effect.

Didsbury became to expensive so places like where I live have become the new Didsbury, this is now spilling out northwords and is now affecting places like Moss Side and Whalley Range. Basicaly when people can't afford to live in a diserable area they look to the next suburb or area.

I don't think a 3 bed house should really cost any more than £120k in Manchester. Especialy as the average salary is probably only about £17k (in Manchester).

 

I think that those of us who are parents realise that high property prices are very much a mixed blessing, as our children will themselves have to buy houses in due course (otherwise they'll never move out!)

We are faced with the dilemma of either a) selling our house and moving somewhere smaller, using the proceeds to help our children on the property ladder or b) staying put with the possible outcome that our children live at home for the indefinite future.

So, yes, a property burst might be a good thing, but what's more likely, barring a sudden large rise in interest rates, is a slowing down of the rate of price increase. This is already happening in London/the South East.

 

I suppose you have to live in a big house to make that while though, my parents live in a slightly bigger than average 3 bedroom terrace. A basic 2 bedroom flat would cost £120k in the same area, my parents would probably get £160k for our house at the most as it needs a new roof, proofing, a new kitchen, some new window frames so it needs a good £20k spending on it.

Therefore they would still have to pay of a £20k mortage, but end up in somthing much smaller. I think this why my parents have stayed her so long (25 years). As it happened its been a wise investment, my parents nearly took out a new mortage to buy a 1960's style semi down the road, these edwardian houses are now worh more.

Unless there is a crash I think it will be very hard for people like to me to get onto the property ladder though especialy if prices keep rising.

 

We have a large-ish house, which means we could downsize, pay off the mortgage and still have enough to sub our two children for property deposits. But .... we really like our house, not to mention the considerable hassle involved in being in the middle of a buying/selling chain.

 

If a political party were to make a big deal over the problems faced by first time buyers in the housing market, with some serious proposals to address this, it would get my attention. Can't see it happening though.

I sadly don't think a big house price crash is likely either, although from a purely selfish point of view this would be a great thing. I've been hoping for this to happen for the best part of a decade, and sadly feel we're getting nearer to a state of much slower price growth, but no fall.

 

Your not wrong, but you might have noticed that the parties (all of them) main consideration these days seems to "hard working families with children" as though that's all the country is populated by. Problem is I think they figure many of those outside that category don't vote and so don't count, but given that none of the parties seem to want to address the problems of unmarried couples and younger single voters its hardly surprising they may be disillusioned with the parties.

Apart from which that phrase "hard working families with children" (and they all use it), really gets my goat - its as if those who aren't part of a family with children somehow aren't worthy of consideration or perhaps aren't even hard working. Gah.

 

You're certainly correct that the 2 main parties are against changing the system as they would both lose influence.
It doesn't automatically mean an 'Italian style monster raving loonie fest' as the negative publicity suggests. For one thing, there are lots of voting systems, and various rocket scientists having compared them, have suggested some which work fairer, and dont cause loony coalition govt. Also most GBers are used to 2 party politics, so this might keep them quite strong. My guess is that Britain would have 3 strong parties and a green and 1 or 2 narrow issue parties.

 

Graham, I think you are right. It might also have the effect of helping our decision makers, make decisions based on what is the right thing to do rather than what sits best next to their opponents proposals.

I am a keen proponent of PR - I'd even go so far as to say if we don't get it soon our political system may become so meaningless that whether you classified as a democracy or not it will become so detached from the needs of the populace that the classification becomes irrelevant. However what joel is basically saying is that the Turkeys aint gonna vote for Christmas, and in that I fear he may be right.