So much for the rule of law ...

SD on 16/12/2006 at 17:57

In fairness to SE, I can see where he's coming from. Britain's ludicrous first-past-the-post election system means that a Lib Dem vote is often perceived as a wasted vote. Where that perception falls down is that if enough of those "wasted votes" are cast, then they eventualy become worthwhile.

I recall numerous surveys which stated that 40% of Britons said they would vote Lib Dem if they had a realistic chance of getting into power; presumably, the fact that they would have a realistic chance of getting into power if those 40% of Britons actually voted Lib Dem is lost on them.

Saying "I'm not voting Lib Dem because they wont get into power" is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And as a third party with hugely popular policies (so popular that Labour and the Tories keep nicking 'em) this is the biggest barrier we face.

Swiss Mercenary on 16/12/2006 at 18:55

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

In fairness to SE, I can see where he's coming from. Britain's ludicrous first-past-the-post election system means that a Lib Dem vote is often perceived as a wasted vote.

It doesn't make any sense either.

He doesn't want Labour to win, he doesn't think they'd win (Otherwise, he wouldn't be bothering to vote at all), and yet, he still casts his vote for the winner among the two other parties, despite the fact that he likes the loser more.

I mean, it'd make sense if Labour would have a shot at winning in his riding, but I don't think he's communicated that.

SubJeff on 16/12/2006 at 19:45

You've messed up Swiss, but I think perhaps you are ignorant of the situation and the maechanics of British voting. We are talking about a 2 horse race here - Labour vs Tories. Of course I think Labour may win.

You must remember that we do not have proportional representation here, so if I voted Lib Dem whilst I'm registered in, say, Tooting in London (where the support split is something like Labour 40%, Tory 38% and Lib Dem 8%) my vote is likely "wasted" as Lib Dems are very unlikely to get in.

Since everyone knows this many would be Lib Dem voters for the party they dislike the least.

Sad, but that's the truth.

And what I'm no sure about STD, is the fact that they DID have that insane tax idea. I'm just wary of a party that could come out with that in the first place, even if they have dropped it now. And I've no handle on their plans for the future of the NHS, an issue close to my heart.

SD on 16/12/2006 at 20:08

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

And what I'm no sure about STD, is the fact that they DID have that insane tax idea. I'm just wary of a party that could come out with that in the first place, even if they have dropped it now.

So you won't vote for a party because it once had a misguided policy on income tax, but you will vote for a party that has numerous misguided policies on everything under the sun. That makes sense.

Hey, well, at least the Tories never had any bad ideas on tax. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots) Oh wate.

Quote:

And I've no handle on their plans for the future of the NHS, an issue close to my heart.

Well, the guy who came up with the NHS, William Beveridge, led the Liberals in the House of Lords, so you could say it was close to our hearts too, in a "we invented it" kind-of-way.

Myoldnamebroke on 16/12/2006 at 20:14

You're also kidding yourself if you think voting in a Tory government will make the slightest change in terms of sleaze or corruption.

Paz on 16/12/2006 at 20:45

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Well, the guy who came up with the NHS, William Beveridge, led the Liberals in the House of Lords, so you could say it was close to our hearts too, in a "we invented it" kind-of-way.

I know you want to big up your party, fatty, but this sentence is a little over-flattering to the boys in yellow.

Beveridge's Social Insurance and Allied Services report was published in December 1942, and was full of stuff he knocked around with The Fabian Society and the London School of Economics.

He wouldn't join the Liberal Party until 1944 and became leader of the Liberals in the House of Lords later still.

Beveridge certainly came up with the NHS, along with various other ZOMG HIGHLY SOCIALIST ideas; which the Labour Party subsequently implemented (not exactly an easy process, let's not forget).

I think it's a bit of a stretch for you to use "we" when the ideas were in print roughly two years before his Liberal membership, during a period where it was clear that his philosophy owed most to the Fabian Society.

Chimpy Chompy on 16/12/2006 at 21:02

Hmm yeah, isn't the NHS in itself a fairly social-democratish kind of idea? Not that I want to get into whether that's a good\bad thing right now.

Basically what I want in government right now is someone who'll back off a bit from the major tax-and-spend of Labour. From that perspective, the Lib Dems (and their Orange Bookers) are starting to look more attractive. I reckon that, were they to put forward a slightly-smaller-government kind of policy, it would get a much better reaction from the public than the tories trying to do the same.

SD on 16/12/2006 at 21:15

Quote Posted by Paz

I know you want to big up your party, fatty, but this sentence is a little over-flattering to the boys in yellow.

Okay, I'm overstating it a little, but let's not also forget that the foundations for universal healthcare in Britain were laid by Lloyd George's creation of National Insurance in the early 20th century.

Paz on 16/12/2006 at 21:43

Fair doos.

Also, what I forgot to add up there is that I'd be as confident in the Lib Dems' ability to keep the NHS healthy (lollers) as anyone else. More so, probably.

scumble on 17/12/2006 at 12:00

I still think it's a mug's game trying to come up with a rational voting "strategy", because whatever each party pushes out as a manifesto, usually amounting to the usual claims of making education better, fixing up the creaking NHS and so on, it is still very difficult to say exactly what any government, once in power is actually going to do in response to real events.

In a way, the political history of the UK in the late 20th century looks a lot like a flip-flop reaction as enough people periodically change their vote out of desperation because they've had enough of the current bunch. Where change is concerned, things like the arms industry and the NHS are like huge lumbering beasts that various governments try to push along a different course such that things change very little and only in a superficial manner.

So I'm left scratching my head as to what exactly the point of this vote I have is. I tend to vote for the LibDems but I'm not really sure about that either, at least beyond the point that they have actually taken over the local county council once. Even then I'm not really sure whether it will make much difference in the short term.

I mean, politics does lead to short-term thinking of the "not lose the next election" kind, so I wonder if long term trends have less to do with politics than more fundamental shifts in society. At each election it's usually the case that the parties' image has shifted in response to cultural and social changes to appeal to a new demographic. There isn't a huge incentive to look further towards the future, as a politician's career isn't necessarily going much further than the next election, at least once they've been a position of power.

I'm probably more confused now than I was when I started writing, but I struggle to find reasons to bother voting in the current system. Even if I had the casting vote, would that even lead to any great difference in the course of the events of the next 5 years?