NationStates Jolt Archive

So basically i was wondering what peoples opinions of British political parties are, and if you are British who you usually vote for. Personally i usually go for the Conservatives i just can't take brown seriously as a leader anymore after constant lies and shows of weakness. Not to mention i am (as the name suggests) a right winger so am naturally drawn towards the conservative.

So any thoughts you have would be good.

Bremner, Bird and Fortune are funny. That is all I know about British politics.

Bremner, Bird and Fortune are funny. That is all I know about British politics.

Indeed they are:D, this was slightly more directed at us brits

I guess I vote Green because I like some of their ideas and they try oh so hard on their cute little push bikes (not to say they are not a bunch of embarrassing head cases)

Personally i usually go for the Conservatives i just can't take brown seriously as a leader anymore after constant lies and shows of weakness.

I laughed

Bremner, Bird and Fortune are funny. That is all I know about British politics.

don't forget the blind man who has the amazing ability to appear when a job in Parliament becomes vacant :cool:

No Old Labour option in the poll :mad:

I guess I vote Green because I like some of their ideas and they try oh so hard on their cute little push bikes (not to say they are not a bunch of embarrassing head cases):

Greens? i prefer to support a party that actually has a full range of policies rather than one that is essentially a very well represented pressure group, that is not to say that i don't support enviromental action merely that they are not capable of governing the united kingdom.

Bremner, Bird and Fortune are funny. That is all I know about British politics.

That'll change when we bring you back into the Emparh.

No Old Labour option in the poll :mad:

Well as they don't exist anymore i thought perhaps it was best to leave it out.

No Old Labour option in the poll :mad:
To be fair, they're not a political party.


I guess I vote Green because I like some of their ideas and they try oh so hard on their cute little push bikes (not to say they are not a bunch of embarrassing head cases)
Roughly speaking, I'm of the same mind.

don't forget the blind man who has the amazing ability to appear when a job in Parliament becomes vacant
I've heard calls recently for Blunkett and Charles Clarke to get back into frontbench politics.

No Old Labour option in the poll :mad:

NS doesn't really have any angst ridden 16 year olds anymore

Greens? i prefer to support a party that actually has a full range of policies rather than one that is essentially a very well represented pressure group, that is not to say that i don't support enviromental action merely that they are not capable of governing the united kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party

don't believe the hype!

Well as they don't exist anymore i thought perhaps it was best to leave it out.

Well they do. You know, the Labour party has many internal factions - it just happens that New Labour is the dominant faction, and dictates party policy and the government. Quite a few of the Labour backbenchers and Labour Lords are actually Old Labour.

Also, you asked which party we most identify with, thus my answer would be Labour - just not New Labour.

I generally go for SNP/SSP depending on what their policies are at that specific election.

Well they do. You know, the Labour party has many internal factions - it just happens that New Labour is the dominant faction, and dictates party policy and the government. Quite a few of the Labour backbenchers and Labour Lords are actually Old Labour.

Also, you asked which party we most identify with, thus my answer would be Labour - just not New Labour.

fair point indeed, however the official party is grouped as new labour so i thought it best to refer to it as such. If you support old labour then you at least have my respect (for all its worth:D) if not my support for your ideology.

NS doesn't really have any angst ridden 16 year olds anymore

Har, har - because introducing markets into education and the NHS is a great idea that works wonders and saves money :rolleyes:

Har, har - because introducing markets into education and the NHS is a great idea that works wonders and saves money :rolleyes:

you seem to think old labour represents this...funny

you seem to think old labour represents this...funny

well they were in government when the NHS was set up, it is one of the few things you have to give labour credit for.

you seem to think old labour represents this...funny

Because it wasn't Old Labour who founded the NHS and and supported free University education.

Labour- been good on some social issues, very authoritarian on others. Economically reasonably competent in the the good years, but a leader who is about as charismatic as John Major on a heavy dose of sleeping tablets - hardly going to inspire the nation in the difficult years ahead.

Lib Dems- my natural choice of party because of their social stances. Major error in having Cameron-lite Clegg as their leader rather than Cable, who I think could really have reestablished the momentum established under Kennedy.

Conservatives- Likely to win the next election. This saddens me deeply. Their apparent more moderate political positions under "Dave" fail to disguise the fact that the majority of the party is still heavily to the right, although they are at least better than the BNP, and will drag Cameron in this direction when it comes to the stage of him being in power when actual policies are needed. The David Davis ego trip shows how plastic and false the new presentation is. For God's sake, the man supports the death penalty, how can anyone take you seriously as the voice of civil liberties? Furthermore, for obvious personal reasons (the whole me being trans thing) I'm also not EVER going to vote for any party which has representatives, even on the backbench, who wish to score cheap political points on an issue they clearly know less than zero about (thats right, the dude has fuckin' anti-knowledge!) like this guy (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8048.html). And thats before we even get on to Boris and his often disgusting social views, disguised with "look, ignorance and incompetence is a virtue"

All-in-all, I do not affiliate with a particular party, just against the Tories. So I'd vote tactically for whoever in my area has the best chance of keeping the Tory candidate out. Whenever I see a Conservative on a political show, I play my special bingo where I tick boxes for when they use phrases such as "hard-working families" (you're only hardworking if you're rich, otherwise screw you) "choice" (yeh, what your really want is not a good local school or hospital, but the ability to travel miles for a level of service that should be made available locally, whatever the cost) and "fairness" (wow, cos the other parties all say they promote unfairness). Its the only way to distract myself so I don't buy a gun, destroy my TV so I never have to see smarmy Dave, and then assassinate the whole bunch of them.

As you might guess, I really don't like them. And I'm now going to have to leave for a bit so I don't throw my computer out the window in anger built up from having spent to long thinking about them when writing this.

you seem to think old labour represents this...funny

Because it wasn't Old Labour who founded the NHS and and supported free University education.

free university education? not so much of a sucess as the NHS, fees are actually necessary in my opinion to ensure a better quality of education, and with the loan system the current fees don't prohibit anyone from attending university.

All-in-all, I do not affiliate with a particular party, just against the Tories. So I'd vote tactically for whoever in my area has the best chance of keeping the Tory candidate out. Whenever I see a Conservative on a political show, I play my special bingo where I tick boxes for when they use phrases such as "hard-working families" (you're only hardworking if you're rich, otherwise screw you) "choice" (yeh, what your really want is not a good local school or hospital, but the ability to travel miles for a level of service that should be made available locally, whatever the cost) and "fairness" (wow, cos the other parties all say they promote unfairness). Its the only way to distract myself so I don't buy a gun, destroy my TV so I never have to see smarmy Dave, and then assassinate the whole bunch of them.

As you might guess, I really don't like them

hard-working families means just that, families that work hard, it means people who do not sit around and wait for the government to do everything because that isn't what government is for. 'choice' because labour arn't doing anything to restrict choice with the 'polyclinic' idea, and not a single part of conservative policy suggests that they wouldn't bring in a high standard of education and healthcare Everywhere

dave is smarmy? nick clegg is perhaps the worst excuse for a politician except gordon brown

free university education? not so much of a sucess as the NHS, fees are actually necessary in my opinion to ensure a better quality of education, and with the loan system the current fees don't prohibit anyone from attending university.

Unfortunate, but as a principle it is something to aspire to. It could be made to work, but there simply isn't the political will to do so.

Unfortunate, but as a principle it is something to aspire to. It could be made to work, but there simply isn't the political will to do so.
The government wants half of the population to be university educated in 20 years or some other bullshit aspiration which will just devalue degrees, but the costs involved mean that they can't afford to do it fr free.

So there we go.

Unfortunate, but as a principle it is something to aspire to. It could be made to work, but there simply isn't the political will to do so.

I agree it could be made to work, i'm just not sure that it should, after all the money for it has to come from somewhere, surely something else has to compromised in order to pay for it. Of course they could raise taxes but then not everyone goes to uni, the higher taxes would more than likely affect those who are not so well off and less likely (thats wrong of course but true) to go to university.

hard-working families means just that, families that work hard, it means people who do not sit around and wait for the government to do everything because that isn't what government is for.

I don't know anyone who sits around and waits for the government to do everything. I presume you mean the tiny percentage of the larger population who are very long-term unemployed and rely on benefits. What I mean to say is that if Cameron claims to stand for everyone else, their economic and social interests are so divergent that the claim is meaningless.

'choice' because labour arn't doing anything to restrict choice with the 'polyclinic' idea, and not a single part of conservative policy suggests that they wouldn't bring in a high standard of education and healthcare Everywhere

Its sort of inherent in the logic, is it not. If your local services are of a high standard, theres no logical reason why anyone would choose to go further away? Choice would be a non-issue

dave is smarmy? nick clegg is perhaps the worst excuse for a politician except gordon brown

Agreed on Clegg (or Dave 2 as I like to call him), which is why I said I dislike him and he is making me disilussioned with the party I naturally support. And I don't like ol' Gordy either. So we have at least a few points of agreement :)

I don't know anyone who sits around and waits for the government to do everything. I presume you mean the tiny percentage of the larger population who are very long-term unemployed and rely on benefits. What I mean to say is that if Cameron claims to stand for everyone else, their economic and social interests are so divergent that the claim is meaningless.



Its sort of inherent in the logic, is it not. If your local services are of a high standard, theres no logical reason why anyone would choose to go further away? Choice would be a non-issue



Agreed on Clegg (or Dave 2 as I like to call him), which is why I said I dislike him and he is making me disilussioned with the party I naturally support. And I don't like ol' Gordy either. So we have at least a few points of agreement :)

I see no reason why a politician cannot do what is right for all social and economic classes, to claim that you stand for the majority is what all politicians should be trying to do? it isnt impossible to do whats best for everyone simply impossible to persuade everyone that it is for the best.

The fact is government funding is almost never as high per hospital or school as the incomes of private institutions, and money like it or not does tend to lead to a better service. So while local hospitals and schools may be of a high standard private ones which people pay for (as is their right if they do so wish) will usually be better.

Its nice to see some agreement:), I can't say i love Cameron either i simply think hes better than the other too.

free university education? not so much of a sucess as the NHS, fees are actually necessary in my opinion to ensure a better quality of education, and with the loan system the current fees don't prohibit anyone from attending university.

I disagree, the minute you add fees, you start excluding some people who don't want the debt, nor have the money to do it there self. Another problem with the loan system is that it can hurt the mid range income brackets, i met more then one family that can't afford to send all there kid to uni, but will not get a big enough loan to cover all the cost of going uni.

I disagree, the minute you add fees, you start excluding some people who don't want the debt, nor have the money to do it there self. Another problem with the loan system is that it can hurt the mid range income brackets, i met more then one family that can't afford to send all there kid to uni, but will not get a big enough loan to cover all the cost of going uni.

I think the loans/grants system is flawed and needs reforming but it is a good principle. As for those who don't want debt they simply need to accept that things in life are not free, the debts are very fair anyway: intrest only so much a inflation and you dont have to pay it back till you have a decent income, not to mention after a certain period of time if your not earning a decent income there written off.

NS doesn't really have any angst ridden 16 year olds anymore



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party

don't believe the hype!
I don't know about the BRITISH Green party, but here in the USA, the Green party is the Democratic party with stronger stances on the environment.

No general grouping for socialist parties?:mp5:

I see no reason why a politician cannot do what is right for all social and economic classes, to claim that you stand for the majority is what all politicians should be trying to do? it isnt impossible to do whats best for everyone simply impossible to persuade everyone that it is for the best.

Well, you hit upon a fundamanetal issue here. Because a politician cannot actually represent people with such divergent interests, they just go for the lowest common denominator, avoid god forbid making concrete policy statements, and try to win by spin and media presentation. Blair played a major role in establishing such an approach, and if anything Cameron takes it further. Really, no-one can appeal to a majority, or even a pluarity of the population by policies, so the current approach is to have none!

The fact is government funding is almost never as high per hospital or school as the incomes of private institutions, and money like it or not does tend to lead to a better service. So while local hospitals and schools may be of a high standard private ones which people pay for (as is their right if they do so wish) will usually be better.

Point taken to an extent. My problem is, the profit motive and service provision fit uneasily. For schools and hospitals the main goal isn't profit, efficiency and cost-cutting, but providing a good service. While I'm against ridiculous levels of bureaucracy, the logical conclusion of the private enterprise in service provision is the skeleton staff unable to fulfil their duties properly, and the bean-counters at the top going "well, yes, people have died when they could have been saved, and we've decided its not economically worthwhile to provide those lifesaving drugs that these patient needs for a longer life. We know thats very sad, but far more importantly; look at my powerpoint presentation outlining how much money we've saved this month through cutting staff and beds". This is why I also have major issues with privatisation as a whole, but thats an issue for another day. It also seems inherently wrong to me that someone can get better treatment or education than someone with the same illness just because they have more money. I for one would rather have a higher tax rate to ensure quality treatment for all for free as on the original NHS principles. I would on principle also ban private schools and hospitals, even if their standards are better, as the concept goes wholly against the idea of treating people equally and trying to give them as much the same life-chances as possible.

Its nice to see some agreement:), I can't say i love Cameron either i simply think hes better than the other too.

Heh. As a leader who can attract voters with charisma, yes. The thing is, while I disagree with Tory economic policy on principle, I can accept their arguments as reasonable alternate points of view. What dissuades me from even considering putting an X next to candidates names is occasional statements on social issues, often from backbenchers (or mayoral candidates) rather than the front bench, that make me genuinely furious that such people are in positions on power.

The government wants half of the population to be university educated in 20 years or some other bullshit aspiration which will just devalue degrees, but the costs involved mean that they can't afford to do it fr free.

So there we go.

I agree that degrees should not be devalued by just giving them away, but I sort of understand the drive of the government to create a very educated workforce: the future of the British economy is as a service provider to the global economy. Traditional degrees (BAs/BScs) should probably reserved though just for the strongly academic subjects, and things like business studies should not get more than National Diplomas or whatever.

I agree it could be made to work, i'm just not sure that it should, after all the money for it has to come from somewhere, surely something else has to compromised in order to pay for it. Of course they could raise taxes but then not everyone goes to uni, the higher taxes would more than likely affect those who are not so well off and less likely (thats wrong of course but true) to go to university.

A long time ago there was the notion of graduate tax in practice. I would think that would be quite fair.

I'm not voting here, because ALL those parties suck. Old Labour - good, New Labour - BAD. I can't put it any other way; the people don't have a party any more.

Well, you hit upon a fundamanetal issue here. Because a politician cannot actually represent people with such divergent interests, they just go for the lowest common denominator, avoid god forbid making concrete policy statements, and try to win by spin and media presentation. Blair played a major role in establishing such an approach, and if anything Cameron takes it further. Really, no-one can appeal to a majority, or even a pluarity of the population by policies, so the current approach is to have none!



Point taken to an extent. My problem is, the profit motive and service provision fit uneasily. For schools and hospitals the main goal isn't profit, efficiency and cost-cutting, but providing a good service. While I'm against ridiculous levels of bureaucracy, the logical conclusion of the private enterprise in service provision is the skeleton staff unable to fulfil their duties properly, and the bean-counters at the top going "well, yes, people have died when they could have been saved, and we've decided its not economically worthwhile to provide those lifesaving drugs that these patient needs for a longer life. We know thats very sad, but far more importantly; look at my powerpoint presentation outlining how much money we've saved this month through cutting staff and beds". This is why I also have major issues with privatisation as a whole, but thats an issue for another day. It also seems inherently wrong to me that someone can get better treatment or education than someone with the same illness just because they have more money. I for one would rather have a higher tax rate to ensure quality treatment for all for free as on the original NHS principles. I would on principle also ban private schools and hospitals, even if their standards are better, as the concept goes wholly against the idea of treating people equally and trying to give them as much the same life-chances as possible.



Heh. As a leader who can attract voters with charisma, yes. The thing is, while I disagree with Tory economic policy on principle, I can accept their arguments as reasonable alternate points of view. What dissuades me from even considering putting an X next to candidates names is occasional statements, often from backbenchers (or mayoral candidates) rather than the front bench on social issues that make me genuinely furious that such people are in positions on power.

Well if anything you've proved that your can certainly put your point of view across (better than me anyway :)), i am i like to think a realist, the fact is the amount of money you have will have an affect on most things that you do, now i don't think thats bad to an extent. Certainly i am not saying that all people don't deserve free health and education but that people should have the choice to choose something different if they can and want to. Those who are wealthy have in many cases worked hard for that wealth and have a right to spend it where ever they wish.

Your certainly right about the vague policy idea, i cannot stand that type of politics that we have at the moment. While i will usually disagree with socialist policy i will respect it as a viable alternative and take the view into my consideration. Now i'm not saying the tory's are any better, simply that it was blair and labour that started it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this but i've enjoyed the discussion, thanks:D

I'm not voting here, because ALL those parties suck. Old Labour - good, New Labour - BAD. I can't put it any other way; the people don't have a party any more.

Yeah, the last time Labour were in power they did such a good job.

Well if anything you've proved that your can certainly put your point of view across (better than me anyway :)), i am i like to think a realist, the fact is the amount of money you have will have an affect on most things that you do, now i don't think thats bad to an extent. Certainly i am not saying that all people don't deserve free health and education but that people should have the choice to choose something different if they can and want to. Those who are wealthy have in many cases worked hard for that wealth and have a right to spend it where ever they wish.

Your certainly right about the vague policy idea, i cannot stand that type of politics that we have at the moment. While i will usually disagree with socialist policy i will respect it as a viable alternative and take the view into my consideration. Now i'm not saying the tory's are any better, simply that it was blair and labour that started it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this but i've enjoyed the discussion, thanks:D

Yeh, I wasn't expecting to change your view or anything! As I said, on economic matters such as this I perfectly accept there are rationally arguable opposing views to mine. Its always been the social opinions of some members that make me really annoyed. Yes, that was quite a good discussion actually. Though the fact that both of us have been reasonable and that this has not degenerated into a slanging match goes massively against the core spirit of these forums :)

Yeah, the last time Labour were in power they did such a good job.

Ah yes good old Callaghan, paved the way for maggies years, luckily for us tory's we now have another man to pave the way for a period of conservative dominance, one of the few things Brown is good for.

Yeh, I wasn't expecting to change your view or anything! As I said, on economic matters such as this I perfectly accept there are rationally arguable opposing views to mine. Its always been the social opinions of some members that make me really annoyed. Yes, that was quite a good discussion actually. Though the fact that both of us have been reasonable and that this has not degenerated into a slanging match goes massively against the core spirit of these forums :)

O dear is it usually that bad? as the post count might suggest I'm new here so i don't know so much about it. If it is bad I'm glad i've found at least one person i can have a reasoned discussion with.

O dear is it usually that bad? as the post count might suggest I'm new here so i don't know so much about it. If it is bad I'm glad i've found at least one person i can have a reasoned discussion with.

Haha. Well, its like real life, some people have little debating skill or knowledge, and yet very strong opinions and it can sometimes end up in "YOU SUCK" "NO, YOU SUCK" "YEH? WELL, THEN YOU'RE A NAZI" "YEH, WELL YOU'RE A COMMIE" type stuff and posters holding grudges that means when they see a topic they'll say "I bet poster X will come here and say...(insert a distorted, simplified version of their arguments)". Which is why I've been around for ages but not posted often (This is my fourth nation, all the others I only had post counts of under 100, but I first came here in 2005 I think! I was actually a communist then, I'm ashamed to say, but hey I was only in my teens). I'm the type of person who is really not into hostility and just log off if the other person starts being an ass, because its not worth getting stressed about something someone said on teh internets. But not to frighten you away. Its quite funny watching other people get angry at each other and get banned. And if you're reasonable and consistent, and ideally, ocassionally humorous, you generally avoid the asshats, who tend to be quite shortlived before they get banned anyway. And its a good source of world news stories and viewpoints from other ideological experiences that you otherwise wouldn't hear.

Putting the Shinners and the DUP in the one category - they'll love that. :D

Putting the Shinners and the DUP in the one category - they'll love that. :D

There all northern irish, it'll do them some good to realise it:D

None of them come close to matching the sets of policies that I'd like to see put in place, so I currently have no idea who I'll be voting for next time around.

A lot of my peers are quite smitten with Cameron's Conservatives but their petty point-scoring in Parliament, wherein they simply spout forth knee-jerk objections and rejections to anything the sitting Government do or say, just turns me off. Oh, I realise that the Tories only come across this way today because they happen to be the primary opposition, and that Labour were no better when the situations were reversed, but it still pisses me off no end. As I've said many times before, watching a parliamentary session reminds me more of a playground spat than it reminds me of debate - hell, I've seen better -- and certainly better-informed -- debate in here.

The Lib Dems can't seem to decide who they are any more which is a shame since, for a while, it looked as though they might actually provide a way out of the two-party trap that the country has slipped in to. Basically though, from all I see and read, the whole shebang is a mess.

The Greens have improved a great deal since their, shall we call them 'beardy'?, early days, but they still come across as lacking a coherent set of policies that could be effective, and are never likely to have the numbers to challenge the other three. They will instead just continue to rob the other parties of votes which, I suppose, is enough reason to be thankful for them since at least it offers the hope of unexpected results here and there.

UKIP and the BNP are an irrelevance (to me).

Much though it surprises me to be saying it, after a lifetime of talking them down, I think I may even vote SNP next time around. If they'd just get their heads around the idea of utilising nuclear power I might even enjoy doing so :)

New Labour:

Conservatives with smiles. Funding for arts and culture is pathetic. Stone henge cut and shut... EES funding goes bye bye. British archaeology missions, good people, good proposals, good minds, but where's the budget? New BM exhibition hall? When? Money to help with Cutty Sark restoration? Where? South bank centre refit.... going going never...Talk tough but spend light on policing. Transport... Crossrail WHERE? Hackey-Chelsea line? WHERE? HS2 WHERE?

Labour=fail.

Conservatives

Lower taxes when our budget is already inadequate for investment needs. Genius. Appeal to lowest common denominator with "talk tough" policy. Genius. Typical politician.

Liberal Democrats

50p tax could have been good. Shouldn't have dropped it.

Green

I don't think we should hand over a single one of our missiles until the Americans get there's out of our country, thanks.

UKIP

Racist joke.

BNP

Bad racist joke.

Local Nationalists (SNP etc)

UNITED KINGDOM. One ruler, one nation.

Irish Parties (DUP SDLP sinn fien etc)

I don't live in NI.

Honestly, I give up on our politicians. They will always appeal to the lowest common denominator, and are concerned only with wildly masturbating whilst watching the stock market ticker. They don't care for the country, or for anything that is beautiful or of substance or real worth. They are rats that steal the grain, and contaminate all that's left.

The fact is government funding is almost never as high per hospital or school as the incomes of private institutions, and money like it or not does tend to lead to a better service. So while local hospitals and schools may be of a high standard private ones which people pay for (as is their right if they do so wish) will usually be better.


When you introduce money and profit into this equation it become a little less clear where the added value is though. How many car-crash victims are taken to private hospitals? How many private schools have a high proportion of students with special educational needs? We all know the answer. Not many, although I'd have said none except for the few schools run on a genuinely charity basis.

I certainly wont deny there has been an issue with quality of service in the UK's institutions in the past, and the bureaucratic tendencies of many public servants would try the patience of any saint. But do we really get a better service from the private sector? If you're not an economic asset you're simply not valued and, to be honest, cock-ups in the private sector are just as common in the public sector but they're just not deemed as newsworthy because "your tax isn't paying for them".

The private sector is not in the business of providing a better service. It is in the business of providing profits and the best return on investment to its shareholders, which is mandated by law. It may provide a better service if this results in more customers and more profits but it is not an end in itself. You could argue that a deficiency in democratic accountability also leads to public institutions failing to provide a better service as well but I would argue which had the better intentions. Good intentions mean nothing though so I accept the counter argument. However, we can identify the areas that are strategically and socially important to the nation (healthcare and education for example) and, with enough political will, sort them out. We can't "sort out" the private sector though unless we remove it's ultimate raison d'etre (which I would argue for but more than me will argue against).

Don't live in the UK, but Plaid.

Wales ftw.

Because it wasn't Old Labour who founded the NHS

No. There was a White Paper going around during the War under the national government, and it was mainly based around the ideas of the Liberal William Beveridge.

I'm a Lib Dem member.

Lib Dems- my natural choice of party because of their social stances. Major error in having Cameron-lite Clegg as their leader rather than Cable, who I think could really have reestablished the momentum established under Kennedy.

He didn't stand for leader.

No. There was a White Paper going around during the War under the national government, and it was mainly based around the ideas of the Liberal William Beveridge.

I'm a Lib Dem member.


He didn't stand for leader.

Beveridge isn't typical in modern political terms and the The Lib Dems are not the Liberals.

In fact, as you're a supporter of an offshoot of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party which are you claiming the greater affinity with?

British politics is just like all other bourgeois parliamentarianism, semantic debates between two different types of capitalists.

British politics is just like all other bourgeois parliamentarianism, semantic debates between two different types of capitalists.
To an extent, I'd agree.

Though the problems of the parliamentary democracy don't all boil down to economic ones.

I'm surprised by the number of people who voted conservative even though we have so many self proclaimed socialists on NS. :eek:

Anyhow, I voted New Labour.

Don't live in the UK, but Plaid.

Wales ftw.
I'd love to hear what Wales has won in the last 2000 years?

i definetley prefer the lib dems to labour and the conservatives, i want fairer taxes and elections. i also want more rights and freedoms.

I'd love to hear what Wales has won in the last 2000 years?
The battle of Crug Mawr! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crug_Mawr):D

The battle of Crug Mawr! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crug_Mawr):D

Precisely!

I'm surprised by the number of people who voted conservative even though we have so many self proclaimed socialists on NS. :eek:

Anyhow, I voted New Labour.

New Labor=conservatives

No real difference.

New Labor=conservatives

No real difference.

true

The battle of Crug Mawr! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crug_Mawr):D
Yes, amazing indeed. Ho hum.
Precisely!
Uhu... we still own Wales, and will always own Wales until we really don't want it any more ;)

New Labor=conservatives

No real difference.

Thats not exactly true, while its true we have two political parties close to the center there are major differences between there actual policys. Perhaps not radical difference but do we really want radical parties in our modern system? Can't say im too keen on the BNP of the communist party of GB. I suggest reading the parties manifesto's before making this judgement.

Links to Manifesto's

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=policy.campaigns.home.page

http://www.labour.org.uk/labour_policies

Thats not exactly true, while its true we have two political parties close to the center there are major differences between there actual policys. Perhaps not radical difference but do we really want radical parties in our modern system? Can't say im too keen on the BNP of the communist party of GB. I suggest reading the parties manifesto's before making this judgement.

Links to Manifesto's

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=policy.campaigns.home.page

http://www.labour.org.uk/labour_policies

Yeah, so what? The Labor Party's manifesto here in Australia says they are a 'democratic socialist' party, which is palpably false seeing as the whole party are right-wing reformists.

Also, the Communist Party of Great Britain is reformist and revisionist to the core, as far as I know they still embrace the 'British Road of Socialism' garbage which Politt put out 60 years ago, has socialism happened in that time through peaceful parliamentary means? I DON'T THINK SO.

(god I hate revisionists)

Yeah, so what? The Labor Party's manifesto here in Australia says they are a 'democratic socialist' party, which is palpably false seeing as the whole party are right-wing reformists.

Also, the Communist Party of Great Britain is reformist and revisionist to the core, as far as I know they still embrace the 'British Road of Socialism' garbage which Politt put out 60 years ago, has socialism happened in that time through peaceful parliamentary means? I DON'T THINK SO.

(god I hate revisionists)

Well i was aiming for discussion based on the British political parties hence the title, who are while similar in some ways not the same they differ in many essential areas.

And on a curious note are you a communist?

God it's going to be great when Andaras attempts glorious revolution all on his own.

I'm gonna be a UKIP voter, the EU is messing big time, isn't democratic and DESTROYS national sovreignty so I want to get out. BNP are too racist so UKIP are the party for me!

I'm the 1st to answer UKIP, Why?

[QUOTE=Liberela;13824203I'm the 1st to answer UKIP, Why?[/QUOTE]

Likely because they are seen to focus too much on a single issue (an important issue yes and i agree with their stance), people want a political party who can be seen to effectively govern all areas of policy.

So basically i was wondering what peoples opinions of British political parties are, and if you are British who you usually vote for. Personally i usually go for the Conservatives i just can't take brown seriously as a leader anymore after constant lies and shows of weakness. Not to mention i am (as the name suggests) a right winger so am naturally drawn towards the conservative.

So any thoughts you have would be good.

I loled... considering that Brown is by now making Thatcher look like a bit of a hippie.

I loled... considering that Brown is by now making Thatcher look like a bit of a hippie.

Thatcher was brilliant... never insult the thatcher:(

I'm gonna be a UKIP voter, the EU is messing big time, isn't democratic and DESTROYS national sovreignty so I want to get out. BNP are too racist so UKIP are the party for me!

I'm the 1st to answer UKIP, Why?
Because the isloationist mindset that they champion regarding Europe is unrealistic and, frankly, silly?

Because people (a little unfairly) think of them as a sort of BNP-lite?

Because some people remember Kilroy-Silk, and never liked the smarmy bastard?

Because people in those annoying other nations quite like their devolved powers, thanks, and will not support a party that wants to abolish them?

Because their registered membership of around 16,700 people means that you have to go a long time before you bump into a supporter, and this thread isn't all that long?

Because they've yet to have a single elected MP? (Bob Spink doesn't count, since he was elected as a Tory and then jumped ship)

Because support for them seems to be falling even faster than support for New Labour? (witness London assembly elections, UKIP down from 8% to 2% of the votes)

Some other reason?

Take your pick.

Thatcher was brilliant... never insult the thatcher:(

:rolleyes:

I WAS insulting Brown and New Labour...


Btw, how many of those votes for Conservative are your puppets?

:rolleyes:

I WAS insulting Brown and New Labour...


Btw, how many of those votes for Conservative are your puppets?

well then i have quite clearly made a fool out of myself:D

and none of them i have one nation and i have voted once, i found the result of the poll rather shocking considering how many very vocal leftists seem to be on here.

and none of them i have one nation and i have voted once, i found the result of the poll rather shocking considering how many very vocal leftists seem to be on here.

I smell a rat, I think...

I wouldn't really have expected overwhelming support for Labour, considering that they've turned more conservative than Mary Whitehouse recently. But I find it hard to believe so much support the Tories.

I smell a rat, I think...

I wouldn't really have expected overwhelming support for Labour, considering that they've turned more conservative than Mary Whitehouse recently. But I find it hard to believe so much support the Tories.

well if you look at the current polls, this poll is relatively accurate for the conservatives.

well if you look at the current polls, this poll is relatively accurate for the conservatives.

Oh, no doubts there. But I know that the crowd who hangs out on this forum isn't exaclty a representation of British demographics.
They're on average younger, more educated, nerdier and as a result more likely to be on the left side of the spectrum.

Oh, no doubts there. But I know that the crowd who hangs out on this forum isn't exaclty a representation of British demographics.
They're on average younger, more educated, nerdier and as a result more likely to be on the left side of the spectrum.

indeed, i do hope you wern't suggesting that only stupid people support the right wing of politics...:p

indeed, i do hope you wern't suggesting that only stupid people support the right wing of politics...:p

Well, let's put it this way : the further right you go, the more you tend to find intellectually challenged supporters.
Not saying that doesn't happen the further left you go, either. ;)

Tory and Labour are both middle ground, and right now it's rather difficult to point out any significant difference between them anyway.

Left and right tends to be an age/income related issue more than anything else.

The Tories and the Labour party are the same party and the Lib Dems will never win an election.

Well, let's put it this way : the further right you go, the more you tend to find intellectually challenged supporters.
Not saying that doesn't happen the further left you go, either. ;)

Tory and Labour are both middle ground, and right now it's rather difficult to point out any significant difference between them anyway.

Left and right tends to be an age/income related issue more than anything else.

well i think we both agree that the two extremes are wrong, both fascism and communism had disasterous results for the countries they were used in.

Luckily for me I'm young and not especially wealthy, and my entire family vote labour religiously, i like to think i made my political decision based on learning and making an informed decision.

well i think we both agree that the two extremes are wrong, both fascism and communism had disasterous results for the countries they were used in.
Fascism and communism are not the polar opposites that your "two extremes" comment suggests. They're not even really comparable since communism is, strictly speaking, an economic system whilst fascism is more an authoritarian political system -- to say they are the two extremes of ideology is a bit like saying that 'red' is the opposite of 'aluminium'.

Luckily for me I'm young and not especially wealthy, and my entire family vote labour religiously, i like to think i made my political decision based on learning and making an informed decision.
I'm definitely not suggesting that this is the case, but your comment conjures up images of someone who has deliberately chosen to pursue an ideology that is different from those they were brought up with. Just saying.

well i think we both agree that the two extremes are wrong, both fascism and communism had disasterous results for the countries they were used in.

Luckily for me I'm young and not especially wealthy, and my entire family vote labour religiously, i like to think i made my political decision based on learning and making an informed decision.

See, I'm old now, and the thing I learned about politics is that there is no right and wrong. It's all about what suits who best.
As in, it suited my grandparents and parents best to be a conservative as they could get away with, both politically and socially.
And it suits me best to be left-wing and socially open-minded.

So no matter how much you learn or inform yourself, your political decision will always be based on your personal preferences rather than anything else.

Fascism and communism are not the polar opposites that your "two extremes" comment suggests. They're not even really comparable since communism is, strictly speaking, an economic system whilst fascism is more an authoritarian political system -- to say they are the two extremes of ideology is a bit like saying that 'red' is the opposite of 'aluminium'.


I'm definitely not suggesting that this is the case, but your comment conjures up images of someone who has deliberately chosen to pursue an ideology that is different from those they were brought up with. Just saying.

agreed the two extremes comment was a generalisation, but i was using the woefully poor left right scale on which communism and fascism are opposites.

And yes i admit that is a possibility, i do weigh up the pros and cons of any given ideology before making a decision but it is a possibility that i might subconciously favour the right because of a desire to be different.

yes i admit that is a possibility i do weigh up the pros and cons of any given ideology before making a decision but it is a possibility that i might subconciously favour the right because of a desire to be different.
Weighing up the pros and cons before making any decision is an eminently sensible way to go about things. The fact that you're prepared to acknowledge that there might be subconscious bias is also good :)

I can't see me actually ever deciding to become a loyal follower of any British political party. The major parties are, as has been noted repeatedly in this thread, just shades of grey and their stated policies shift with the wind in an attempt to make them look different from the sitting Government, and so I can't see that any of them are likely to match what I am looking for at the time of any given election.

I suppose that makes me the classic 'floating voter'. I'll cast my ballot for whichever candidate most closely matches what I am looking for when the election rolls around. This often involves local politics as opposed to Westminster politics, and 'local' politics has become a whole lot more complex for me ever since some of the authority that affects me directly passed to Holyrood from Westminster. The situation may even arise where I find myself voting for representatives of different parties depending on whether it is an election for an MP, an MSP or an MEP. ;)

Weighing up the pros and cons before making any decision is an eminently sensible way to go about things. The fact that you're prepared to acknowledge that there might be subconscious bias is also good :)

I can't see me actually ever deciding to become a loyal follower of any British political party. The major parties are, as has been noted repeatedly in this thread, just shades of grey and their stated policies shift with the wind in an attempt to make them look different from the sitting Government, and so I can't see that any of them are likely to match what I am looking for at the time of any given election.

I suppose that makes me the classic 'floating voter'. I'll cast my ballot for whichever candidate most closely matches what I am looking for when the election rolls around. This often involves local politics as opposed to Westminster politics, and 'local' politics has become a whole lot more complex for me ever since some of the authority that affects me directly passed to Holyrood from Westminster. The situation may even arise where I find myself voting for representatives of different parties depending on whether it is an election for an MP, an MSP or an MEP. ;)

Well i do try not to blindly follow anything, i reguarly check out the policies of other parties and keep myself updated on the conservative party's policies, so that i avoid ever becoming one of those people who i hate so much: those who follow what their told with thought or regard for what is actually happening or what the consequences of their decision could be, we all know of what happens when that sort of thing is taken to extremes.

No Old Labour option in the poll :mad:

Because Old Labour doesn't exist anymore. They took your votes and sold you down the river.

I don't know what's worse - Thatcher (Conservative) telling you honestly she's going to fuck you, and then bending you over the rail and fucking you in the ass, or Labour coming into power, and telling you they'll set things right, and then bending you over the rail and fucking you in the ass.

Beveridge isn't typical in modern political terms and the The Lib Dems are not the Liberals.
So? The point is that Labour gets a lot of undeserved credit regarding the creation of the NHS etc.

In fact, as you're a supporter of an offshoot of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party which are you claiming the greater affinity with?[/QUOTE]
Both. I'm socially Liberal but economically Socially Democratic, hence a Lib Dem.


I'd love to hear what Wales has won in the last 2000 years?

6 Nations :p


btw. The BBC did a fairly readable analysis of Tory policies a while back.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7471741.stm)

Because Old Labour doesn't exist anymore. They took your votes and sold you down the river.

I don't know what's worse - Thatcher (Conservative) telling you honestly she's going to fuck you, and then bending you over the rail and fucking you in the ass, or Labour coming into power, and telling you they'll set things right, and then bending you over the rail and fucking you in the ass.

I still have the moral high-ground because I'm not actually a British citizen, entitled to vote, merely a very politicised resident :p

I'm gonna be a UKIP voter, the EU is messing big time
In terms of what? The CAP has stopped the complete destruction of European agriculture, we can now move freely all around Europe, and any problems that go unresolved in your home state can be appealed to the European courts. These are all good things.
isn't democratic
It's exactly as democratic as our system.
and DESTROYS national sovreignty
National sovereignty nowadays is meaningless. In twenty hours, I can be anywhere in the world. Were I in some kind of military force, it could be a bit less than that. Aerial transport has made it fairly convenient to go anywhere in the world, in less than a day, so national borders are sort of irrelevant.
BNP are too racist so UKIP are the party for me!
At least you've that much sense.
I'm the 1st to answer UKIP, Why?
Because most people are dubious about leaving the EU.