POLL: The General Election (UK)

[Mr Writer]

So, I see relativly few (read none) posts on this issue. Stark contrast to the american election. Who will you be voting for, should you wish to reveal that is. Personally I'm not sure, neither party convinces me and Labours majority looks unbeatable (Worst projections give them a landslide).

Thoughts,

Conservatives - Weak and aimless. Howard is a poor leader, or he employs monkeys for campaign managers. Calling Mr Blair a liar is extreamly poor form. To call the Prime Minister a liar is something quite extream. While, it is acepted that PM's may not always divulge ever fact to the public for obvious reasons, to say he outright lied is pretty extream. Mislead is one thing and perhaps true, but Lied implies that Tony Blair intentionaly took us to war under false pretences.

Futhermore, the Tory's main campaign issue is a poor choice, immigration. What the? Whatever mileage was left in that tank expired within the first week of campainging, putting it on the top of your manifesto is absured. Admitedly, Howard has very little to fight blair on, and is at a significant disadvantage because of this (Kennady can attack the Conservatives, Howard as the opposition cannot really recipricate), Howard cannot critise the economy, as on the whole, it is doing extreamly well. Indeed it has been some time since the pound has been this strong. Moreover, Gorden Brown is a genuinly talented and perhaps more importantly, popular man. However the constant campaign of slander run by the tories doesnt strike a cord with me. Ok so you've told me they are bad...what makes you better? Remember you still have alot of same ministers who were part of the sleeze scandle of the 1980's.

Liberal Democrats

Charles Kenady is a nice man...but nice men finish last. He did will in question time with David Dimbleby but then he was given the esaiest questions (unlike Blair who looked like he was going to expire on us there and then under such a barrage). I am disillusioned with Labour, being a traditional socialist voter, and so political logic (is there such a thing?) would dictate I vote liberal. But they seem to want to please everyone, they seem awfully two faced. However I would like to see them as Her Majastys Opposition. It would take a large swing to the yellow, but its not in the realms of fantasy.

Labour

Or should that be new labour. Now I come from a traditionaly Labour town. I am a Labour voter as the Socialist part of great brition...only NEW labour is not. I do feel let down in some areas, however they have performed more than adequatly in others.

On the war? Well I think Blair mislead us yes. However, I think he believed he was making the best possible choice at the time. If he outright lied and mislead us, would someone care to explain exactly why he did so. Remember unlike Bush Blair has gained practically nothing from this war.

On the massive Labour Majority, well before 1997 Landslides used to be measured by a party gaining an overall majority of 70 seats or more. The previous record was in 1945 when the population backed the creation of the Welfare state and voted labour a massive majority of around 140 (havent got figures to hand). Come 1997 blair gets a majority of 170 something, by the next election it had fallen to 150-60 I think, this election it is predicted to fall at worst to 120, at best to 150.

At this rate labour will be in power until 2050.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 15 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The General Election (UK) (15 votes.)

Who gets your vote? (Choose 1)
* I am a Uk Citizen and I will be voteing for Labour - 33% (5)
* I am a Uk Citizen and I will be voteing for The Conservatives - 13% (2)
* I am a Uk Citizen and I will be voteing for The Liberal Democrats - 20% (3)
* I am a Uk Citizen and I will be voteing for Other\I wont be voting - 7% (1)
* I am not from the UK, but I would vote for Labour - 7% (1)
* I am not from the UK, but I would vote for The Conservatives - 7% (1)
* I am not from the UK, but I would vote for The Liveral Democrats - 13% (2)
* I am not from the UK, but I would vote for Other\I dont care - 0% (0)

[Barmy Army]

I'll be voting for Labour.

Labour are still the closest thing to my beliefs. In an ideal world I prefer the ideas of Old Labour and believe that Labour today is far too Tory for it's own good.

I will never, ever vote Tory. A Tory vote is a vote for the richer people of this country who would like to see public services cut to the bear minimum so that tax can be reduced for people, who to be quite honest, are more than capable of paying more.

Labour have dissapointed me by being so Tory, but I'd have then any day over Micheal Howard and his team of gibbons.

And I'm not being funny mate, but it's 'extreme'. Sorry, that was just getting on my ****, lol.

[Mr Writer]

Heh, I wrote that after a few pints. I apologise for anything written, be it for its syntax or spelling or its contents.

Old labour was far from perfect. I would say remember, but I would wager on you being younger than 22, but the ideals which emerged from post war politics. Especially the consenus on keansyism over the economy is perhaps the reason why we have been out paced by the German economy, I mean they actualy lost the war.

However, how New Labour, can talk about education and egalatarianism after introducing top up fee's is beyond me. Surely such a measure goes against the core principles of the Labour movement.

[Daie d'Malkin]

Oh dear. Guys, please no more 'New Labour'. Please.
We've all had enough.Lets have a leader who is prepared to stand on his own two feet, and do something worthwhile for once. Not that fox-hunting banning muppet Blair.

I'd vote Liberal if they had a hope in hell of ever getting elected, after their 90 year slump. I'm putting my money on a Tory win.

Not voting tjough, and not due to my general apathy, but my age. One year off a vote.

[Dranalis DeAealth]

Hague based his entire campaign in 2001 around Immigration and The Euro, and he deservedly got slaughtered for it. Howard is basing his entire campaign this time around Immigration and Gypsies, and he will suffer precisely the same fate as Hague did.

I suppose some people never learn.

[Lawless]

This is my first time i can vote as i recently turned 18. My uncle says to vote for the one with the funniest name. But It seems to me that whatever Labour says The Torries disagree on. To be honest i might be inclined to vote labour. If labour were about what the Conservatives are then the Torries would disagree.

[Carcaroth]

Given the choice, I want a Lib dem government, Ah well I can dream. Failing that, a hung parliament is the next best thing, still not a snowballs chance in hell. In reality, it's a foregone conclusion with president Blair getting his third term.
I dislike the Tory's, including the fox-hunt supporting swine of an MP we currently have, but I will be voting for them to try to ensure that Labour don't get a chance to increase their majority. It my be a different story if Brown was in charge, but I have no trust what-so-ever in Blair.

Local election wise, I will also be voting Tory. Party politics have a lot less importance at a local level and I have en very impressed with the improvements made in the last two years by the local council so I'll happily support them.

[Cernak]

Keep voting for the lesser of two (or three) evils, and eventually you wind up with Geo. Bush in the seat of power, who is certainly the lesser of something or other. What is going on anyway, with the party in power, both here and there, so obviously flawed, and the opposition so timid and emasculated, seemingly unable to state the obvious, impotent before the straw man in front of them. If I'm not mis-informed, I understand Mr. Blair has recently repealed Magna Carta. That seems reason enough to vote against him, whatever the abilities or lack thereof of the opposition.

[Midwinter]

My head says vote Lib Dem - they're not getting in, certainly, but locally it's very close between them and the Tories.

However, my heart says vote Green - it's the party whose policies I agree with most, after Lib Dem. I know they have zero chance, but if they can grab a seat somewhere across the country and have a little bit of political clout, then I'll be happy (of course, it's probably not going to happen this time, but if it ever is, then it's got to start somewhere, right?).

[Charlie]

Looks like Blair will get another term. The Blair-Bush partnership continues...

[Mr Writer]

The swing to the Lib dams to make them HM official opposition from either lab or tory is quite small, supprisingly so.

Even if every labour began to vote lib dem (bbc swingometer) never would the tories get into a majority government before after a massive swing the liberals got in.

With the tories, its only a 25% swing (only lol) before there are no tory Mp's in great britain.

[Kitrax]

I'm from the USA, but if I were english, I'd vote for good ol' Blair. Glad to see that he's still keeping you Britts in line.

[Carcaroth]

It has been reported that Labour announced today that it is changing its emblem from a Rose to a condom because it more accurately reflects the Governments policy stance:

“A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of p***ks, and gives you a sense of security while you’re actually being screwed.

[Daie d'Malkin]

Kitrax, that ain't funny. Still, at least it's not Count Mikeula.

[Mr Writer]

It has been reported that Labour announced today that it is changing its emblem from a Rose to a condom because it more accurately reflects the Governments policy stance:

“A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of p***ks, and gives you a sense of security while you’re actually being screwed.

Haha, interesting but horribly flawed. 48 consecutive, unbroken cyclical periods of growth one thing you can't knock this Labour Government for is its handeling of the economy. Brown is truely talented.

[The Magpie]

Talented, yes, but don't put to much stock in his talk of "economic cycles". It's a measure of time that's pretty much been chosen to make him look good, whatever. And don't forget Labour inherited a good economy; although perhaps they deserve even more credit for having the nous not to try and change things too much and screw it up!

Ultimately, this Labour government has handled things like the economy well - so far. Issues about pensions & other shortfalls will need to be addressed in this coming parliament, though. Only their insistance upon going off on Dubya's Big Iraq Adventure and their attempts to push through some very worrying terror legislation have, thankfully, diminished their majority. Whilst they have been the most competent government for a while, they have also been one of the most arrogant, and needed the dose of humility they received last night. Hopefully, they will stick to the core issues of governance for the next four or five years rather than nannying and meddling, as they have been prone to do in the past.

[Dranalis DeAealth]

If I'm not mis-informed, I understand Mr. Blair has recently repealed Magna Carta.

You are misinformed.

[Cernak]

Dranalis: "You are misinformed,"--re my comment on Magna Carta. I think not:

"[Blair's] latest desperate distraction from the Iraq debacle--a bill in the name of the "war on terror" to legalize imprisonment without trial and impose South African-style banning orders--slid through the House of Commons...On March 11, a revised version passed the Lords as well, breaking a promise to British "freemen" that had stood since the Magna Carta." The Nation, p. 31, April 4, 2005.

That seems pretty specific to me. I don't believe I was mis-informed.

[AMaster]

I'd be careful about taking anything written in The Nation as gospel, Cernak. It's as much a propaganda source as it is a news source.

[Cernak]

You mean that when someone writes in The Nation that a certain bill passed Parliament on March 11, he might be just making it up. The quote I used is from a book review by D.D. Guttenplan, of whom I admittedly know nothing. I do know that contrary to your assertion about The Nation being a propaganda source, it has in fact been one of the most respected news weeklies in this country for 140 years, since it was founded in 1865. Like the UK's Guardian, it is self-owned. There is no Lord Murdoch telling it what it can and cannot print. They do take a leftist view; this doesn't bother me.

It is plain lazy to imply that the quote I give must be inaccurate because The Nation is a "propaganda source". If you don't like the quote, do some work and refute it.

[AMaster]

You mean that when someone writes in The Nation that a certain bill passed Parliament on March 11, he might be just making it up.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Oh, wait, no it isn't.

I do know that contrary to your assertion about The Nation being a propaganda source, it has in fact been one of the most respected news weeklies in this country for 140 years, since it was founded in 1865.

Respected by whom? Serious question.

It is plain lazy to imply that the quote I give must be inaccurate because The Nation is a "propaganda source".

Basing something solely off an article in The Nation is about as wise as basing something solely off an article from World Net Daily.

If you don't like the quote, do some work and refute it.

Don't care that much, but a cursory google search revealed precisely zero news sources talking about Blair repealing the Magna Carta. There were a few forum threads, a couple blogs (both pro/con), and a page on one of the opposition party's site, but, erm...that's about it. So how about you do some work and support it?

[Dranalis DeAealth]

You can't "repeal" something which is, for the most part, not in effect anymore, has largely defunct clauses, and has hardly any modern legal weighting. This was my point.

What I believe you mean is that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has come under fire for impinging upon habeus corpus - which is first codified in Magna Carta. Although this has happened before in the past, for instance, during the Second World War, and the Napoleonic Wars, I believe, so it's hardly something novel as the article wrongly suggests.

[Cernak]

Thanks, Dranalis, That is pretty much what I meant. I looked up the Act on Google (courtesy of Her Majesty's Stationery Office); its provisions are fairly intimidating, particularly the long section on Control Orders against individuals. (1.)

It's true that Magna Carta is little more than a Holy Relic, whose primary importance today lies in its assertion that Englishmen have certain inalienable rights--that sounds familiar--that the government may not impinge upon; the principle of the thing, you might say. Which is what this Act does.

The two examples you cite both occurred in wartime, wars in which Great Britain was quite literally threatened with destruction. Whether the "war on terrorism" deserves to be exalted to this dimension is precisely the point.

(1.) Control Orders may be issued against individuals by the Secretary of State. The controlled person's movements and associations may be restricted; his residence may be searched at any time; he may be taken into custody and questioned at any time. There are many other specifications. The Act does provide for immediate judicial review of such orders. It also allows the arrest of an individual as soon as the application for a control order is made, before such order is issued.

A Master: I'd like to reply to your post, but I don't believe there's anything there that can be replied to.