General Election 2010!

SD on 10/5/2010 at 19:43

Turnout is so low because the large majority of constituencies are pretty much locked down for one party, so voting is essentially pointless. It's only in a few marginals that your vote can really make a difference.

june gloom on 10/5/2010 at 19:48

Quote Posted by Vernon

chip off the old block tbh

fuck off troll nobody likes you why don't you go shove a cactus up your dick it's a more constructive use of your time

SubJeff on 10/5/2010 at 19:50

I think apathy has a large part to play in it. Most people I know who didn't vote say that as far as they are concerned all the parties are the same. I've overheard this said nth times too and I'm sure I saw a survey somewhere asking people why they don't vote (some years ago mind) and a signifcant proportion answered "makes no difference" or whatever.

And let's not forget actually having to register to vote. Too many hoops and although it's not a biggie it's enough of an issue that there has been the suggestion of automatic registration when you get a driving license or get married and so on. I forget by whom, but the idea is out there.

Annnnyways. I'm both nervous and excited about the ConDem discussions. I so hope they do it because I think they both have ideas that could work together. It's almost like my dream party :p

jay pettitt on 10/5/2010 at 19:53

That's not voter apathy - that's UK politics failing.

SubJeff on 10/5/2010 at 20:00

We'll have to agree to disagree because I, and many others like me (including other forum members), see ALOT of difference between the parties. If it's not voter apathy it's voter ignorance. Either way, it's not the failure of politics.

*Zaccheus* on 10/5/2010 at 20:59

"I agree with SD".

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

In a more or less even three way split things could definitely get Italy-style problematic very quickly, and very persistently.

I understand this is not the point you were making, but effectively you are saying the LibDems (and other parties) should be denied their fair share of seats because it will benefit the country.

Sorry but I just don't find that acceptable.

It is not even clear whether we would have that situation, as voting habits are likely to change if we ever get real PR.

Brian The Dog on 10/5/2010 at 20:59

Hague has offered a referendum on the AV system to the Lib Dems. Labour has offered a full introduction of AV without referendum, and also a referendum on a (yet-to-be-seen) more Proportional Representation system.

I'd have thought the Tories would be happy to see the Lib Dems join with Labour in a unsteady coalition that will cause unhappiness when the cuts come next year, which would make Labour so unelectable they'd be out for at least 2 terms (similar to how unpopular the Tories were in the mid 90s). The only problem for them is that this scenario relies on the economy doing badly - which means there's not much for them to govern when they get in :p

One downside to Brown going - it means I might be a floating voter 3 ways rather than 2 now ;)

jay pettitt on 10/5/2010 at 21:01

Quote:

Here's a timely example of what people see.

Tories, having made a big, comprehensive and open offer that was neither big, comprehensive or open - just a rehash of policy points that Tories think constitutes common ground - have this evening made a last ditch attempt at ensnaring Liberals with an 'offer' for a referendum on Alternative Vote.

AV is tweaking the window dressing on first past the post. In an absolutely fundamental way it doesn't deliver a parliament that recognisably reflects the way people vote and it's not in any way shape or form proportional representation and it's not a policy that Lib Dems support. (though it might yet woo over Labour - after today anything is possible and my money's now on a lab/tory coalition)

What Willy Hague is up to is playing games - he wants to be able to lie through his teeth tomorrow and claim that his party has gone into the negotiations in good faith, met the Lib Dems half way and even offered their key request of electoral reform and the electorate a nice fluffy democratic referendum (as though hardly any electoral reform is the same as the specific kind of substantial reform the Liberals espouse) and put the pressure on the Libs to accept pretty much no offer at all with no concessions at all - yet empower the Tories with a coalition and votes and shared responsibility in what is going to be a spectacularly unpopular government.

If you say one thing, while delivering another then you're full of shit - and that feeling that they're all a bunch of disingenuous, untrustworthy crooks endlessly bullshitting, squabbling and shafting each other about who gets power over the same center ground is what apathetic, ignorant voters resent and that elections only usher in more of the same is why voters don't feel empowered or enthused.

And they've got a point.

Feel free to point out what ALOT is with an actual example or something though.

Brian The Dog on 10/5/2010 at 21:20

Am I right in thinking AV is when you list the parties in favour with a 1-2-3 preference? I guess this would favour LibDems and Labour since they are close together whereas the Tories don't have a similar party (except UKIP...)

Labour are themselves not sure whether this offer is a good thing - John Reid has said it's a disastrous thing for Labour, Blunkett agrees with him, and many of the Cabinet looked glum when they left tonight. Although you can take your pick as to the reasons :)

Quote Posted by Matthew

But if he didn't at least suspect it, he's a numpty. :p

This is why I'd be rubbish as a politician - I just believed what they were saying, like a numpty :)

SubJeff on 10/5/2010 at 22:53

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

Feel free to point out what ALOT is with an actual example or something though.

Oh, I don't know. All the people in this country who would never, never vote for one party or another and who will only vote for whoever.