You'll be thankful when I start up my own political party then Just need to think of a catchy name.

(June 8, 2009 at 2:56 pm)LukeMC Wrote: @ Adrian

wiki article Wrote:The reason for this is not human rights act its self but due to the fact that European Court of Human Rights has no legal document in Britain that it can use as a guide for what rights and responsibilities people in Britain can expect.

See, this sounds fair enough, but isn't convincing when preceeded by:

wiki article Wrote:# "The Human Rights Act has made it harder to protect our security."
# "And it's done little to protect some of our liberties."
# "It is hampering the fight against crime and terrorism."

This appears to imply that rights are getting in the way of dealing with crime and terrorism. My knee-jerk response was to compare it to the erosion of American rights brought in under the guise of anti-terrorism and conveniently named The Patriot Act. Of course, it was only a knee-jerk reaction but I'm still unconvinced that such motives don't exist within the party. In context of the rest of the article however, it does appear that the conservative party are far more concerned about our freedoms and rights than we might think- especially when compared to labour.

It makes me wonder why the conservative party are crushed into the upper right of the Political Compass if Cameron's policies are so much "for the people".

---

(June 8, 2009 at 2:45 pm)bozo Wrote: I haven't voted in recent general elections because I haven't had a socialist party candidate to vote for and I don't like the choice of voting for the " best of the worst " under our first-past-the-post electoral system.
I am hoping that part of the reforms we are being promised after the expenses scandal will be a change to proportional representation. Such a change should help re-engage people with politics. In my case, I could join a socialist party that could campaign on a socialist agenda with a real hope of having a voice in Parliament.
If that doesn't happen, I may well not vote again next time, unles Labour is still intending to introduce ID cards ( I belive it will now probably drop it before the next GE ). If I'm wrong, then I might vote for the likeliest party that will form the next government that will ditch the policy.

My mother is very much the same in regards to her feelings on electoral reform and how she would engage with a socialist party. Slight difference- she votes "best of the worst" in each election. She's still under the impression that Labour are for the working people and the closest we have to socialism. Sigh. On a sidenote, she used to campagin for socialism when she was younger I never knew this until recently.

It's very strange this year; there appears to have been a huge shift in the positions of labour and conservatives. Or perhaps the fact that I'm new to politics just makes it seem so.


------------------------------------------
I'm also under the impression that our elections aren't nearly as fierce or epic as those in America. The divide between Labour and Conservative supporters doesn't match that of the split between Liberals and Republicans in the US. When following the run-up to the elections, it became apparent just how much passion was put into the 2-team run. Am I right in saying we don't have anything like that in Britain? And if not, do you think it would be a good thing to have or not? I feel like it might spark an interest in British politics that I can't seem to find elsewhere. Nobody in my school is associated with any particular party- they show complete apathy, and when I'm on websites such as politicsforum the British politics section is only a tiny and underviewed section with little contributions being made. The american section is booming constantly though. Perhaps we need third party with completely different ideologies to make an impact and bring some "big debates" to light here. Even this forum is pretty void of British political discussion. If I want to some decent debate material I have to look towards the United States- be it on youtube or in forums.

I don't see much evidence of a big shift in positioning between Labour and Conservative. In days gone by there was. In days when Labour was for the working class and Conservative was for the middle and upper classes. Those days went when Thatcher became pm and the working class was betrayed by Labour and by trade union leaders. Today, both parties are simply caretakers of capitalism.

As a result, it is not surprising that real debate and real passion is missing.

bozo Wrote:Today, both parties are simply caretakers of capitalism.

Another good reason for voting for them

I sense a clash of titans is looming (Adrian and bozo )

@ Bozo
What I meant by the shift is how Conservatives appear to be less fascist than Labour now. It's almost as if labour have taken a turn for control and the conservatives are wanting to give freedom back to the average people (ID cards being scrapped is a good example). The conservative party seem almost... promising? (Yes, I said it )

I sure hope the early election isn't called. I'm not old enough to vote until October.

(June 9, 2009 at 4:53 pm)LukeMC Wrote: I sense a clash of titans is looming (Adrian and bozo )

@ Bozo
What I meant by the shift is how Conservatives appear to be less fascist than Labour now. It's almost as if labour have taken a turn for control and the conservatives are wanting to give freedom back to the average people (ID cards being scrapped is a good example). The conservative party seem almost... promising? (Yes, I said it )

I sure hope the early election isn't called. I'm not old enough to vote until October.

The conservatives are where Labour was in 1997. Labour became " new Labour " which really meant " new Conservative " in order to win over " middle england " i.e. the small minority of floating voters that have come to decide who wins in the First-past-the-post system we have.
Cameron has done all that he can to ditch traditional toryism ( he says the tory party was seen as " nasty " ) and will do anything, including being left of Labour ( which isn't dificult ) on those issues he thinks will win the election.
I'm repeating myself but it really boils down to the 3 main parties being capitalist parties and there being no other realistic options for voters whilst fptp remains. That is why millions no longer bother voting at a general election.
Finally,Luke, if you think Cameron's tories are " promising " have a look at the Euro parliament and see the right-wing parties the tories are going to line up with at Brussels.

(June 10, 2009 at 9:27 am)bozo Wrote: The conservatives are where Labour was in 1997. Labour became " new Labour " which really meant " new Conservative " in order to win over " middle england " i.e. the small minority of floating voters that have come to decide who wins in the First-past-the-post system we have.
Cameron has done all that he can to ditch traditional toryism ( he says the tory party was seen as " nasty " ) and will do anything, including being left of Labour ( which isn't dificult ) on those issues he thinks will win the election.
I'm repeating myself but it really boils down to the 3 main parties being capitalist parties and there being no other realistic options for voters whilst fptp remains. That is why millions no longer bother voting at a general election.

I have no reason to disagree with anything you've said here. Even my school librarian recently said "I don't know why anybody votes- those parties are all the same." It's certainly a prevailing opinion.

What is your alternative to FPTP? A runoff system I presume?

Bozo Wrote:Finally,Luke, if you think Cameron's tories are " promising " have a look at the Euro parliament and see the right-wing parties the tories are going to line up with at Brussels.

From the little research I've attempted since you made this post, the most I've managed to come up with is an article in an Indian newspaper claiming the conservative equivalents of each country have swarmed the election. However, I've found little that is conclusive. Even the EU website wasn't much help. Could you back your statement up a little? I'm not challenging the truth of your statement, I would just like to see the hard evidence for myself.

(June 11, 2009 at 9:13 am)LukeMC Wrote:

(June 10, 2009 at 9:27 am)bozo Wrote: The conservatives are where Labour was in 1997. Labour became " new Labour " which really meant " new Conservative " in order to win over " middle england " i.e. the small minority of floating voters that have come to decide who wins in the First-past-the-post system we have.
Cameron has done all that he can to ditch traditional toryism ( he says the tory party was seen as " nasty " ) and will do anything, including being left of Labour ( which isn't dificult ) on those issues he thinks will win the election.
I'm repeating myself but it really boils down to the 3 main parties being capitalist parties and there being no other realistic options for voters whilst fptp remains. That is why millions no longer bother voting at a general election.

I have no reason to disagree with anything you've said here. Even my school librarian recently said "I don't know why anybody votes- those parties are all the same." It's certainly a prevailing opinion.

What is your alternative to FPTP? A runoff system I presume?

Bozo Wrote:Finally,Luke, if you think Cameron's tories are " promising " have a look at the Euro parliament and see the right-wing parties the tories are going to line up with at Brussels.

From the little research I've attempted since you made this post, the most I've managed to come up with is an article in an Indian newspaper claiming the conservative equivalents of each country have swarmed the election. However, I've found little that is conclusive. Even the EU website wasn't much help. Could you back your statement up a little? I'm not challenging the truth of your statement, I would just like to see the hard evidence for myself.

I would support a system of proportional representation...there is a variety. I would go for that because I believe it would encourage more people to actually get involved, even if that were just casting a vote!
Under pr, " minority" parties get to have a say. Opponents would say that fascist parties would benefit as well as parties of the left. My answer is that open debate and scrutiny of policies would expose the far-right for what it is. I would welcome the opportunity of joining again a genuine socialist party that could win seats under athe different system.

Re. the tories and europe, if you check out today's Guardian newspaper, page 29 " Comment & debate " Timothy Garton Ash describes how Cameron's tories in europe are leaving the centre-right grouping ( the EPP ) and instead aligning themselves with a motly crew of easter european right-wing nutters.

(June 11, 2009 at 2:22 pm)bozo Wrote: I would support a system of proportional representation...there is a variety. I would go for that because I believe it would encourage more people to actually get involved, even if that were just casting a vote!
Under pr, " minority" parties get to have a say. Opponents would say that fascist parties would benefit as well as parties of the left. My answer is that open debate and scrutiny of policies would expose the far-right for what it is. I would welcome the opportunity of joining again a genuine socialist party that could win seats under athe different system.

Open debate and scrutiny are the keys to a lot of victories in this country, I'm sure. I know that such things constantly alter my decisions and motivation. Now that you've suggested PR, how do you suppose such a system could creep its way into place? I can't see the conservatives giving up their disproportionally high number seats next year to some "left wing loons" without a fight. If you know what you want to achieve it's always good to have an idea of how to get to it. I'm still young enough to be optimistic.

Bozo Wrote:Re. the tories and europe, if you check out today's Guardian newspaper, page 29 " Comment & debate " Timothy Garton Ash describes how Cameron's tories in europe are leaving the centre-right grouping ( the EPP ) and instead aligning themselves with a motly crew of easter european right-wing nutters.

I found the article which can be located here for anyone interested in the context.

Strange move by Cameron. I'd quite like to know what he thinks he's doing associating with some of these clowns (Christianity is the root of European greatness?) . Any suggestions, Bozo, Adrian?

(June 11, 2009 at 3:15 pm)LukeMC Wrote:

(June 11, 2009 at 2:22 pm)bozo Wrote: I would support a system of proportional representation...there is a variety. I would go for that because I believe it would encourage more people to actually get involved, even if that were just casting a vote!
Under pr, " minority" parties get to have a say. Opponents would say that fascist parties would benefit as well as parties of the left. My answer is that open debate and scrutiny of policies would expose the far-right for what it is. I would welcome the opportunity of joining again a genuine socialist party that could win seats under athe different system.

Open debate and scrutiny are the keys to a lot of victories in this country, I'm sure. I know that such things constantly alter my decisions and motivation. Now that you've suggested PR, how do you suppose such a system could creep its way into place? I can't see the conservatives giving up their disproportionally high number seats next year to some "left wing loons" without a fight. If you know what you want to achieve it's always good to have an idea of how to get to it. I'm still young enough to be optimistic.

Bozo Wrote:Re. the tories and europe, if you check out today's Guardian newspaper, page 29 " Comment & debate " Timothy Garton Ash describes how Cameron's tories in europe are leaving the centre-right grouping ( the EPP ) and instead aligning themselves with a motly crew of easter european right-wing nutters.

I found the article which can be located here for anyone interested in the context.

Strange move by Cameron. I'd quite like to know what he thinks he's doing associating with some of these clowns (Christianity is the root of European greatness?) . Any suggestions, Bozo, Adrian?

Re.pr the big 2 parties have never embraced pr because they have shared power for so long under fptp.
However, post expenses scandal, there is a clamour for constitutional reform, including pr which can be seen operating elsewhere e.g europe. My hope is that it is brought in openly, not creeping!

Re. Cameron, he appears to have boxed himself into a far-right corner in europe as a result of pandering to euro-sceptics in his own party 4 or so years ago. As if being part of a centre-right coallition wasn't bad enough!

(June 7, 2009 at 9:11 pm)padraic Wrote: @ Brits:

My perception of this [utterly predictable] scandal and the political atmosphere in the UK is that Brown would have to be out of his mind to call an early election.

That is true, because Gordon Brown only ever think's of Gordon Brown. If he had any feelings for his own party, and Britain, he would call a general election as soon as possible.

The electorate is implacably against Labour now, and the longer they stay in government, the more damaged they will become, and the bigger majority the Tories will have after the general election.

Just as the 1992 General Election was a win too far for the Tories, I have long feared that the 2005 General Election was also a win too far for Labour. Both of those elections were lost by the opposition, rather than won by the governing party, as both clearly looked out of ideas, but the opposition couldn't come up with a viable alternative. Michael Howard in 2005 was as convincing as a PM as Neil Kinnock in 1992.

If the political pendulum swings too far in favour of the Tories, we will end up with the same kind of one party state we had from the 1980's and late 1990's. None of it will do British politics any good at all.

(June 7, 2009 at 9:11 pm)padraic Wrote: OF COURSE the opposition want an early poll: The investigation is still under way. They want an election before more dirty linen gets aired and whilst the voters are still in high dudgeon and likely to turn on Labor en masse.

I think Labours days in office are numbered now anyway. Both main parties are equally guilty of abusing Westminsters expenses system, so I don't see why this should dent Labours share of the vote more than the Tories.

Labour MP's can sing themselves the lullaby that their poor election results is down to the expenses scandal, and/or the recession, but I think people are turning against Labour because their long term in office has made them lose touch with the electorate, and the electorate are now sick of them.

It could be argued that Labour was never in touch with the leectorate in the first place. They were voted in to increase investment in public services, to improve them, not waste money on bean counters and quangoes.

The vital part that Labour forgot was that while the electorate wanted more money spent on public services that were neglected by the Tories, they still wanted value for money, and a sustainable level of investment, not a War Chest, that turned into a Golden Rule On Borrowing (with adjustable goal posts) that turned into a level of insane borrowing that now threatens Britains triple A credit rating.

(June 7, 2009 at 9:11 pm)padraic Wrote: As they say"a week is a long time in politics" In Brown's place it'd be holding on for dear life,in the belief things can only get better.I think that may be the case, the public finds out just how many Tories have had their snouts buried in the public trough,and how deep.

Regardless, I think the next British general election will be a corker.

Be interested in your views.Am I on the right cricket pitch?

The trouble for Brown here is that Cameron has taken the initiative over the expenses scandal. The electorate also has a long memory, Tory ministers caught up in scandal, in the 1990's were sacked when they were found out, and never allowed to resurface again. I Can't say the same for Labour.

I have no party political loyalties, but I could never envisage Peter Mandelson, after his scandalous escapades, becoming a Lord, let alone deputy Prime Minister in all but name in the Tory party, nor in the Labour party at any other time in history than right now.