Voting Conservative

[Cyberman]

I don't think they could be much worse and I will be voting Tory next time, principally in the hope they keep their promise to scrap ID cards.

However I felt the same when I voted Labour in 1997.

I have never voted Labour and never would. Hopefully, you have learned your lesson since 1997. I promise you they will be far better than the current bunch of incompetents.

 

[HairyArsedBloke]

Libertarian Party. I really like the idea of small Government, something you will never get with either Liebour or CONservative.

 

[expat]

It is giving me trouble, because I don't like this New Labour lot and don't intend to vote for them. But I don't think I could ever vote Tory. Unfortunately the Lib Dems seem to have nothing left of the old Liberal ideas, so although I might have voted for them before I am not inclined to now.

In different ways, and in some of the same ways, I am not interested in UKIP, BNP, Communists or Greens (OK, interested but not in agreement), or Libertarian Party (philosophically sympathetic but not politically in favour, it's a logical contradiction to start with).

I may have to stand myself, unless the SNP put up a candidate in South Bedfordshire.

 

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I have never voted Labour and never would. Hopefully, you have learned your lesson since 1997. I promise you they will be far better than the current bunch of incompetents.

Learned my lesson - what a pompous arsehole! I won't be taking lessons form someone who is so stupid they wouldn't consider voting anything but Tory no matter how crap they were - what a joke! As for your promise the Tories will be better, we'll see, they weren't much cop last time.

 

[VectraMan]

As for your promise the Tories will be better, we'll see, they weren't much cop last time.

So in 1997 the country wasn't in any better state than it was in 1979?

I think half the problem is governments sticking around for two long. The Americans have the right idea: two terms of of 4 years max is pleanty for any regime. After that we should have a fresh leader, and not one who's automatically promoted from chancellor to PM without an election.

I'll probably vote Tory (which means my vote will be counted for the first time ever). I doubt anything will be all that different (I doubt they can do many things differently, at least not in the short term), but at least it'll be a change.

 

[Gonzo]

I think half the problem is governments sticking around for two long. The Americans have the right idea: two terms of of 4 years max is pleanty for any regime. After that we should have a fresh leader, and not one who's automatically promoted from chancellor to PM without an election.

Unfortunately the direct comparison is not appropriate because the american government is formulated differently.

The government - or executive who work for the president, are completely separate from the legislature (the congressmen and the house of representatives).

They are on different electoral cycles so there is less oportunity for the executive to lean on the legislature to get what they want approved.

This is totally different to the UK where the government can get whatever they want done, so long as they have a big enough majority in parliament, or they can strike enough fear into the hearts of the back-benchers, or they can persuade enough people from other parties to vote with them.

<shudders>I am not completely happy that I think the americans have a better system, and to add insult to injury, they based this on ideas that they got from the french.</shudders>

 

[Peoplesoft bloke]

So in 1997 the country wasn't in any better state than it was in 1979?

I think half the problem is governments sticking around for two long. The Americans have the right idea: two terms of of 4 years max is pleanty for any regime. After that we should have a fresh leader, and not one who's automatically promoted from chancellor to PM without an election.

I'll probably vote Tory (which means my vote will be counted for the first time ever). I doubt anything will be all that different (I doubt they can do many things differently, at least not in the short term), but at least it'll be a change.

Yes of course we were in a better overall state by 1997, and whilst I grant some credit to the government for that, I don't see at as the sole reason. Also, history has a way of making things rosy, especially if the party some people support blindly was in power.

Schools and hospitals were in a mess in '97, they are, from my (admittedly purely anecdotal) experience better now - not saying they are perfect, but cash needed spending and some of it wasn't wasted.

I agree with what you say about length of time in power - by '97 the Tories had been in power too long. Now Labour has and it's time for them to go - like the Tories in '97 they have started to believe their own propoganda and they think the reason they are unpopular is that they haven't explained their policies properly just as the Tories did then.

 

[VectraMan]

This is totally different to the UK where the government can get whatever they want done, so long as they have a big enough majority in parliament, or they can strike enough fear into the hearts of the back-benchers, or they can persuade enough people from other parties to vote with them.

Maybe that's a good argument for proportional representation. It's always been said PR would most likely produce a hung parliment, which would make life difficult for the government, but at least then we'd have a chance at an independent parliment.

 

[Gonzo]

Maybe that's a good argument for proportional representation. It's always been said PR would most likely produce a hung parliment, which would make life difficult for the government, but at least then we'd have a chance at an independent parliment.

I think that the places that have tried that suggest not. Look at Italy (post war) as a good example of why it is no good.

New Zealand as well, although not quite so disastrously, but it would only take a couple of upset MPs to cripple them.

 

[Cyberman]

Yes of course we were in a better overall state by 1997, and whilst I grant some credit to the government for that, I don't see at as the sole reason. Also, history has a way of making things rosy, especially if the party some people support blindly was in power.

Schools and hospitals were in a mess in '97, they are, from my (admittedly purely anecdotal) experience better now - not saying they are perfect, but cash needed spending and some of it wasn't wasted.

The schools may have improved from a maintenance standpoint, but our education standards are the worst we have ever had. I went to one very disciplined grammar school where all tutors were very well respected and it was a pleasure to learn, but sadly nowadays discipline seems virtually non-existant.
Hopefully, if the Tories stick to their mooted family-promoting policies we may see some improvements, because discipline begins in the home and we have just too many broken families nowadays. I heard that 60% of black children live with a single parent, which is truly staggering!!