Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jan 29, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Personally I think that unlikely the Tories will win. They haven't new fresh ideas, they can rely only on traditional electorate. Their leader is not a bright politician, rather looks as a loser.
Posters on the "better side of AARSE" have brains. Do not, at your peril, apply such qualities to the British electorate.
They will vote for two things ....
1. A nice smiley man who says things will be better if he's in charge.
2. A change.
Parties don't win elections, the other lot lose them ... after they have, as all Parties do, been in office long enough for the negatives to outweigh the positives. The Media will always report the negatives, so Parties are automatically time-limited.
The risk for the UK is that the unthinking millions will see Grievous Bodily Brown as "a change to Good Old Labour" instead of "Quasi-Tory Tony". You then have the worst possible scenario ... those old enough to remember when Old Labour ran rampant will understand. Power to the Unions, stuff the middle class [that's ALL officers and SNCOs, BTW]. Grinning Tone kept the Left under some sort of control ... GBH will let them run free.
your defence ... The Boy Dave. Ho-hum ... you have a problem. Just hope the unthinking vote for a change in Party colour (a Tree, FFS!) instead of just a change in shade of Red.
I think the problem stems from the fact that his ideas and politcal motivations are un-tory. They are far too liberal. Not many believe that this will actually be done if they get into power. I for one think it is just being done to try and gain the disillusioned labour votes and will never vote tory in all of my born days.
The only reason I need to vote Tory, is to stop this lot getting in again. A vote for a third party is merely a protest vote, worth nothing.
It's a traditional perception that in the UK the opposition doesn't win elections, the government loses them; but that aside, any aspiring government still needs to make itself appealing, otherwise Labour would have got into power when Major's government faced the electorate for the first time.
This is a very common attitude - I'm not knocking it but it shows that all the posing, focus groups, consultations, manifesto etc. etc. are just so much garbage. My personal opinion is that it does not matter who one votes for as the Govt will do what the govt has to do regardless of what was promised or even expected. All one can hope is that the antics of B.Liar might cause a few such as jest265 to just think a little deeper than the gut reaction of Labour till I die.
I agree. I'm tempted to vote for the UKIP as I don't trust Cameron but it would be a wasted vote and it would be even worse if Labour slipped in for another term under Brown's leadership. Unfortunately there aren't any strong leaders of the calibre required to turn things around and act in this country's interest.
Huzzah ... a thinking voter! As with local elections, voting for an Independent [otherwise known as a single-issue egotist who really doesn't give a s**t about anything else, including you!]
I have never voted Labour either (I haven't been voting long). I also hate the Labour til I die mentality as it allows them to do what they want in effect. Many of my family are in that school of thought and it causes many an arguement with me.
My point was that no matter what the tories say I will never vote for them because the essence of the party and its membership goes against my beliefs. I will generally vote for the party I believe has the best manifesto that comes closest to my own beliefs but I will also take into account the parties positioning on the political spectrum.
Whilst liabour under Blair may be the tory party in sheeps clothing I do not believe that the Tories will readjust the balance and become more liberal and left / central wing.
Damn right, Lady. There are several things that UKIP say that I agree with, but they don't add up to running the country [sorry, your country].
Pretty much the first thing that Cameron did on taking over the Conservatieve leadership was to set up a number of teams with the objective of re-evaluating what Conservative policy should be. As far as I know, these have not yet reported, or at least if they have their conclusions have not yet been made public.
I suspect that the Conservatives are simply keeping their powder dry and will propose positive policies at 'the appropriate time' - which is of course up to them. No point in proposing policies now, n years before the next election, have Brown nick them and then try and improve on them.
There is a saying in British politics that 40% of people will always vote Tory, 40% will always vote Labour, and the remaining 20% swing it. Obviously this 20% is the target audience for both parties, and policies/advertising are aimed at obtaining their vote. The other parties, sorry Lib Dems, only influence at the margin.
I still like the quote, I think attributable to Churchill, which states that:
"Unless you vote Labour in your 20s you have no soul, and if you don't vote Conservative by your 40s, you have no sense."
Passing bells with ref to voting labour in early years, Im cynical enough to believe that is why they reduced the voting age to 18 and will try to drop it further to 16 if they can.
Mr Cameron and Mr Blair......
Seperated at birth perhaps?
Lets face it, we havn't had an opposition in this country for almost a decade and as a result the government have been able to ride roughshod over the populace introducing minority policy at will as there has been no challenge to it in parliament.
Cameron appears to support every policy put forward by the Bliar and i would not be surprised if many New Labour politicians would prefer him as their new leader.
Makes you question democracy......almost
It's the great move to the centre ground! As was mentioned earlier, there are supposedly just 20% floating voters. If you hold up strong opinions, you could lose at least half of them ... keep it woolly and they'll vote for the better-looking guy.
The latter did not apply in the old days, when voters could identify that the cross on the ballot paper was not their signature. And could recognise the difference between Maggie Thatcher and Harold Wilson ... and probably even name them.
Separate names with a comma.