Not even Benn’s fiercest critics would call him an idiot (well, unless they themselves were idiots); he’s a deeply intelligent and articulate man with some very strong left-wing views with which you may or may not agree. Galloway’s not an idiot either, although I can think of several other pejoratives I could apply which are not allowed in this forum.
The combination of the financial meltdown (and Vince Cable’s prescience in that regard) and their inclusion in the debates has thrust the LibDems into the spotlight. That, combined with their shift away from their “more taxes to pay for more services” approach and towards openly painful pragmatism (compared to the other parties’ “We’ll cut some stuff that doesn’t affect you and everything will be fine” approach), is driving their current wave of interest. It’s probably as much of a perfect storm as they can get under the current system. If they can force through PR or at least an alternative vote system they should be able to continue to play a larger role in national politics.
Hmm, just about fair enough I suppose, especially given our current voting system. I must admit that I had not thought of this option (even though it is one reason I am voting Lib Dem!). Perhaps, with all the recent scandals, I simply didn’t believe it possible :).
They must be very good in order to get over the fact that by voting Labour, it could return them to power. Are you not disturbed by this fact?
Nah, he was squeaky clean. Oddly enough, the MSP for roughly the same constituency (Westminster and Edinburgh boundaries are different) is SNP and between the pair of them they’ve lobbied hard and successfully for some much needed transport link upgrades and other capital projects, as well as both being good with the usual constituency gripes. I’ll vote SNP in the Scottish elections for that reason too, even although I oppose the Nats main policy very strongly.
As for the Labour angle, well they aren’t the Labour party I would want. I’ll just console myself with some of the good things that they managed that a certain other party would never have delivered: Minimum wage, civil partnerships, and devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales seem the best and most far-reaching to me. But yeah, Iraq is indefensible.
I think they’ve handled the recession pretty well though - I’ve no confidence in George Osbourne’s ability to manage anything. He really looks like major liability for Cameron. If Cameron had bitten the bullet, fended of the Euro-sceptics in his party, and appointed Ken Clarke as Shadow Chancellor, he’d be in a much stronger position I think, as Clarke has already ably handled the aftermath of an economic clusterfuck.
Not knowing much about politics. I’m supporting Labour because, as bad as they are. I would put good money on us being in an even worse situation had one of the other two been in power instead.
But I kind of morbidly would love to see the Liberal Democrats win.
How much does the identity of your particular MP matter in a Parliamentary system where party-line votes are the norm? Shouldn’t people largely be voting based on party policy, not individual qualities?
It matters because good constituency MPs raise local issues in Parliament, with Ministers and in committees, etc. - MPs jobs are not all about voting along party lines on major nation-wide issues.
But they frequently are, and this is a definite weakness to our system where you vote for a person but that person frequently goes with what their party tells them to (not in all cases certainly).
Anyway, just finished watching the debate and I have to say I think Clegg came out of that the winner again. He closing speech really made me go “wow!”, even as someone who is already voting for him. Oh, and I thought it was one of the richest things I’ve ever heard to hear Cameron complaining bitterly about how Labour has been using scaremongering tactics all this week when the only thing I seem to have heard is the Conservatives saying we’re all doomed if we get anything other than them in power.
I also thought Clegg’s closing statement was very good - I only saw the last half hour or so, might catch a replay. And Clegg’s line about immigration, “You can’t deport 900,000 people. You don’t know where they live.” or whatever it was, amused me.
Cameron came across better in the bit I saw this week than last week, Brown didn’t really, though - he’s still too defensive to really come across well, I think.
Yeah, just wanted to add my agreement that while I disagree very strongly with Benn on a lot of things, he’s far from an idiot.
I’m going for the Lib Dems, partially because I think, in general, a change is pretty good after a long-term party in power even if they’re doing well, and they best match the degree of meeting my views/have a chance to matter, and the general disagreement with Labour and the Tories.
Have you seen this story? Once you get past the individual idiot, from whom even the Conservatives are distancing themselves, there was this little gem by way of clarification:
IOW, “We’re sorry that one of our members said that Labour’s policies will cause young gay males to catch an STD. What he meant to say is that Labour’s policies will cause everybody to catch an STD.”
They’ve also got one of those grinning Gordon billboards complaining about how under Labour the gap between rich and poor has widened, which is pretty gobsmacking coming from the party of Margaret Thatcher. The Conservatives. Vote for chutzpah.
BTW, my local Green party candidate is named Romayne Phoenix. With a name like that, she could only be a member of the Greens.
Correct. Her brother Jacob is standing too, in Somerset, which is presumably an easier fixture for him than the time he stood in Central Fife (a part of the world that has returned Communist Party MPs) driving around in his Bentley accompanied by his nanny. He has been quoted as saying:
I saw a news piece on Jacob Rees-Mogg. He’s kind of sweet in that whole “poor little rich boy with an oversheltered upbringing” way. He hasn’t the slightest clue how the other half lives, but he means well.
Oh aye, he seems like a nice enough bloke. The fleshpots of Fife were probably a bit of an eye-opener for him though. In his place, I’d have wanted my nanny along too.
Oh, and another thing that’s making me chuckle - hasn’t it not occured to the Conservatives that their party name and the slogan “vote for change” might be a bit of a contradiction in terms?
See, this is the attitude that I can’t (under)stand - IMNSHO, you should be voting for the party that is most likely to be best for the country in future (assuming the local candidate is reasonable, and you are not violently opposed to the party’s general outlook). While this is all but impossible to predict, your metric is probably the worst of all possible ways to decide.
What you’ve said is obviously the ideal, and the metric I try to adhere to, but, honestly, I’m swayed by so many other rather inconsequential factors - as is, I suspect, most of the population. That’s the problem with giving the mob the vote: you just can’t trust them to be objective.
I’m a UK citizen, but I’ve never lived in the UK as an adult and I’m not eligible to vote. However, I’d vote for the Lib Dems for three reasons:
Paddy Ashdown was my MP (in Yeovil) for many years, and a very nice man with very good ideas;
I agree for the most part with their current manifesto, although they were a bit closer to my views when they just filled in the gap between Tory and Labour;
I find the idea of the Lib Dems winning the election and then standing around going, “okay, now how do we do this ‘forming a goverment’ thing?” quite touching.
For the record, I’m not a fan of their plan to stand down Trident and (as I understand it) not buy any more nukes.
They are by definition not moderate. They’re conservative- hence the name. US politics are unrecognizable to most of the rest of the world.
They wouldn’t even be moderate by US standards- they’d be to the left of the Democrats on most issues.
would never have delivered: Minimum wage, civil partnerships, and devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales seem the best and most far-reaching to me. But yeah, Iraq is indefensible.
Very true.