The last General Election had the lowest voter turn out since the end of the First World War - the populace seem to have realised that there is no choice, no real difference between the parties. 'New Labour' had a much slimmer majority than they did at the previous General Election.
How can you choose between the 3 main parties - there is so little difference: the scandals, the corruption, the sleaze - they are not unique to any of the main 3. Policies are based on 'votability' e.g The Fox Hunting debacle - there is no real chance of that ever getting through Parliament as a complete motion - but as a vote winner for people with animal loving/environmentalist tendencies it had to be in the Manifesto (I vote for the 'Green' representative - and will continue to do so - the only real environmental option)
Tony Blair and New Labour have no real interest in the environment (mainly because Dubyah says we don't need to!)

It seems to me that people have become so cynical and jaded by all the 'spin' and the scandals and the lies that perhaps by the time the next General Election comes around there will be no clear winner.
People vote for the person who comes across the best in the media - because at the end of the day - how else do you tell them apart??

My decision is based more about what goes on at a local level. I much prefer the Labour representatives on my loacl council, most of the Tories are OK but severely blinkered and all the Lib Dems are horrible peices of work. The only Independents are people who have pereviously belonged to one of the main three parties but have had some kind of personnal falling out with in the party.

I know that this isn't the case everywhere and i freely admit that some of the Labour party candidates are nasty peices of work too (I'm represented by one of these in my ward) however I do support ACTIVELY support Labour and will continue to do so - I even plan on becoming a councillor my self in the next couple of years. Then i can work in my own small way to make any changes I feel are needed.

Plus - Tony Blair is a jolly nice bloke ( and yes i do know this from personal experience)

Far be it for me to tell people what to talk about but since when did Tangent 21 become the 'Forums of Parliament'?

I was under the impression this was a sci-fi site. Fair enough, this is a general chat forum, but c'mon, there has been more politics around here recently than No 10. If you are so much that way inclined what about a change of career?

(Edited by Ethan 16/04/2002 18:53)

---

by Incandenza
It took a decade of growing discontent before the Conservatives were voted out and arguably the deciding factor in that had less to do with policies than personalities and the pervasive accusations of sleaze over an extended period.

---

This is pretty much how I remember the '97 election being fought. Sleaze accusations were Labour's number one weapon and the slogans were very much along the lines of 'haven't you had enough of Tory sleaze' rather than 'haven't you had enough of Tory policies'.

This theme seems pretty much to have continued ever since. Take Prime Minister's questions for example. It doesn't seem to matter whether the opposition are questioning a policy or making a sleaze accusation, the answer always seems to be along the lines of 'well at least we're not as bad as you', and the original point doesn't get addressed. I'm sure if roles were reversed the situation wouldn't be any different either.

Interesting topic Inc I think that as some have already mentioned, the way that the personalities of the leading members of each party come across in the media is what shapes a lot of opinion.

---

by Incandenza
Why are we still basing the decision over who runs the country on personality?

---

As you have said, most of their policies are very much the same with each party trying to outdo the other, so how else do we make our opinions with so little obvious to chose from?

---

by Ethan
Far be it for me to tell people what to talk about

---

Yes, far be it from you.

---

I was under the impression this was a sci-fi site. Fair enough, this is a general chat forum

---

I was under the impression that this is a discussion site. Here for people to discuss things. Let's take a look at the definition of discussion:

1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

I think this thread suits that definition, don't you?

This forum is called the 'general' forum. Therefore, the discussion can be, well, general. If you don't like the subject matter... don't read it. Comprende?

There is nothing new with the domination of personality over politics in this country. The last Tory government used the record of the previous Labour government as a defence for its inability to manage both the economy and public services. Eventually the excuse got tired and people got sick of hearing it. The same will happen to New Tory as well.

One of the biggest factors of Thatcher's success (and Major's) was that the country never found itself able to trust either Foot or Kinnock. Even after Kinnock had done everything he could to shed his left-wing past (Militant witch-hunt being the classic), he was never seen as someone who the British (well, middle-England) public could trust. Both parties for as long as I can remember have accused the other of being untrustworthy. This is only more pronounced now that the whips of both parties are so scared of ideology that there is nothing else left to discuss.

But even with all the failings of New Tory let's not kid ourselves that there is no ideological difference. A Tory government would never have passed the Human Rights Act (the first step to this country having a proper constitution). It would never have taken on the Age of consent difference between homosexual and heterosexual acts. It would never have taken on Section 28. It would never have devolved power in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. And I dread to think how much worse the situation in Northern Ireland would be if Mo Mowlem had never been Secretary of State. Now let's try to imagine a Tory government that was not humiliated in '97 and '01 and all the things they would have done...

The New Tory project will not continue forever. North of the Trent there is a huge electorate that wants more than the leaderships are currently offering. The Labour party itself will ditch Blair the second his lead starts to waver. There is no love for him in the Party, and he will only stay there while he guarantees governance of the country. Although forthcoming actions over the NHS, GPO and Tube will also put a severe strain on the overly generous leash he is already on.

Democracy is not dead. This is transition. The seventies and eighties were experiments with two extremes that did not work. The aftermath comes from a fear of repeating those errors. Now if we could just get Proportional Representation enacted for General Elections, then we might start to see some real change...

---

by Green_Amber
People vote for the person who comes across the best in the media - because at the end of the day - how else do you tell them apart??

---

The question then becomes, why would we want the country to be run by people whose primary qualification is the ability to present themselves in the best possible light, i.e., politicians.

(I have occasionally thought that anyone who wants to be a politican should be automatically excluded from the job.)

This leads me to (idly) wonder whether we would not be better off drawing our leaders from a different pool ... top businessmen for example or Management Consultants, people with a proven track record in a non political sphere but with skills that are applicable to the role of governing.

---

by Jayjay
Now if we could just get Proportional Representation enacted for General Elections, then we might start to see some real change...

---

Not convinced that it would be good change though ... PR could lead to the proliferation of parties (often glorified single issue pressure groups), compromise governments where no decisions get made, absurdly powerful kingmakers whose 5% of the vote becomes disproportionately important and people at local level who feel disenfranchised because their communities representation has been sacrificed for the benefit of national representation.

Elective dictatorship may not be a good system but I have yet to see any evidence that proportional representation is any better.

---

by Incandenza
This leads me to (idly) wonder whether we would not be better off drawing our leaders from a different pool ... top businessmen for example or Management Consultants, people with a proven track record in a non political sphere but with skills that are applicable to the role of governing.

---

*g* Richard Branson for President!

---

by Incandenza
(I have occasionally thought that anyone who wants to be a politican should be automatically excluded from the job.)

---

"So, why do you vote, if the only candidates are lizards, and they make such a bad job of running the planet?"

"Because if we didn't vote, the wrong lizard might get in..."

Douglas Adams (from memory).

I think there are ideological differences between the parties, despite attempts by spin doctors to get us to ignore the issues and look at personalities. New Labour has succeeded in enacting several programs the Tories would never have considered - it's just that most of the time, they're hidden behind headline-grabbing, but largely irrelevant legislation. This does seem to be deliberate (to avoid real controversy), but is definitely dishonest. On the other hand, they've also adopted many of the more popular of the Conservatives' policies, which means they don't really stand for what they used to.

It seems you can't cast your vote relying on left-wing vs right-wing anymore. Instead, you need to think about the individual issues, which for a lot of people involves thinking too much (me? I think it's a good thing).

And I've always thought the parties screw things up there. If I want to vote for an out and out green energy policy, I need to vote Green, but why should I have to take on board their extreme economic policies?

All IMHO

---

by Incandenza
It took a decade of growing discontent before the Conservatives were voted out and arguably the deciding factor in that had less to do with policies than personalities and the pervasive accusations of sleaze over an extended period.

---

The Conservatives were viewed as no longer being effective or trustworthy leaders. Isn't this a valid reason to vote them out of office?

---

Why are we still basing the decision over who runs the country on personality?

---

Well, having the right personality for the job is actually pretty important, surely?
Maybe not in terms of policy or ideology, but some people have personalities which make them effective leaders, others are particularly suited to diplomacy and negotiation, etc. Having people with these various skills in government is crucial.

I agree it shouldn't be the only factor. The lack of diversity in policy between the main political parties is worrying.

Still, having personally experience little else, I'm unsure when in the past governments have been elected primarily on policy issues, or how this might happen in the future.

---

What is the benefit of the 'first past the post' electoral system now that the third way has become the only way?

---

What was the benefit of it before?

---

by Maffrew
(quotes)

Yes, far be it from you.

(quotes)
I was under the impression that this is a discussion site. Here for people to discuss things. Let's take a look at the definition of discussion:

1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

I think this thread suits that definition, don't you?

This forum is called the 'general' forum. Therefore, the discussion can be, well, general. If you don't like the subject matter... don't read it. Comprende?

---

If you've got a problem with what a member has posted, please email the staff about it, don't post a sarcastic/rude reply in the thread.

Thank you.


(Edited by Whistler 17/04/2002 16:25)

Seems to me that both Ethan & Maff were doing what Whistler said...can't everyone just kiss & make up The animosity on this site is overwhelming just lately!

Perhaps we need more kissing for chairty events Betty Boop

Please let's get this thread back on track as it is an interesting one, thanks!

---

by Velvet Glove
Perhaps we need more kissing for chairty events Betty Boop

Please let's get this thread back on track as it is an interesting one, thanks!

---

Maff and Ethan. Kissing. Images I can well do without....

MY EYES!!!!!!!

---

by Incandenza
Not convinced that it would be good change though ...

---

PR should inevitably lead to a break up of the two party state, and of those two parties. The factions within those parties would no longer have a reason to form a permanent coalition and would have much to gain from going their own way. This would present a genuine choice to the electorate. It would also remove tactical voting. Most people vote for who they think has the best chance of beating the party they least want elected. With PR, every vote counts. And the biggest minority does not go on to form government on its own.

After the Second World War, the western powers sat around and tried to design an electoral system that would give stability and representation. The system designed was the Mixed Member System. Germany has had stable government, but capable of change throughout the post-war years. The system allows for local representation while still ensuring that if you get 10% of the vote then you get 10% representation. The German parliament has never suffered from marginal groups holding it to ransom. It ensures co-operative politics instead of confrontational. I can see nothing that First Past The Post has to offer that MMS does not cover and improve on.

Lastly, FPTP is not immune to small pressure groups holding government to ransom. See the Major Government as a prime example. In fact, I can think of more examples in the recent history of this country than I can in Germany's.