I can see where you are coming from minx but you will need to look at history as to why what you propose will never work.
Europe has had many coalitions over the years and seldom do they work. It usually ends up in instability and short-lived parliaments.
In a way, I think that is why - in the early days of of the ConDem alliance, they set out to establish fixed length parliamentary terms in order to establish some semblance of stability. The present conduct of Nick Clegg outlines why coalitions eventually break down and but for the fixed agreed term and the prescriptive exit route, this coalition will have failed by now plummeting the country into yet another GE.
Just as an aside in response to your other comment about MPs, they are actually 'independant'. They are not necessarily there to 'represent us' in government but technically as legislators. They accept a party whip which some have fallen foul of (more recently the 'get me out of here' female conservative MP and others in the last parliament 'crossed the floor of the House' to join members on the opposite (not necessarily opposition) benches.
In so far as doctrinal econimics is concerned, there are many theoritsts to whom you could refer. One is Keynes the other is Hayek. Interesting reading if you compare the two. Their theories are as much relevant today as they have ever been since the 1930's.
In respect of the money piled in to maintain schools and hospitals by Labour, it was under the PFI initiative (very different in substance to that which the Conservatives had proposed) which has cost the country dear and in many respects is no better than the loan sharks lending at incredibly unsustainable rates against your next pay packet. In the same way that borrowing against your payday is a bad economical strategy, so too was Labour's PFI which is one of the reasons the Country is now in such a mess. It is thought that a Hayekian approach towards reconstruction may have had much different and longer lasting benefits than just mortgaging the Country's future.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
ukip on the rise
Quote by GnV
I can see where you are coming from minx but you will need to look at history as to why what you propose will never work.
In History the facts about how we were governed were not as available to the masses as they are now, people were not allowed to question or think outwardly. I would say a lot is more transparent if you want to know. Which is leading us to all to question more. We can keep saying about history but we are looking at the present and what is around us now.
Europe has had many coalitions over the years and seldom do they work. It usually ends up in instability and short-lived parliaments.
How about Finland, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands?
I know Ireland are suffering but is that a knock on effect from a global financial problem or the way the Irish are governed?
You can say in history it hasn't worked but I feel we have evolved on from then and are continuing to do so, we wouldn't be having this chat in history and others being able to see it openly too. Might have done in a dark corner of a pub with fear of being heard.
In a way, I think that is why - in the early days of of the ConDem alliance, they set out to establish fixed length parliamentary terms in order to establish some semblance of stability. The present conduct of Nick Clegg outlines why coalitions eventually break down.
I still think we look at the person to blame for everything. Many are breed that way, we much all take some responsible surely?
He isn't to blame for all the mess we see ourselves in. Yet many think he is. I know the media do.
Just as an aside in response to your other comment about MPs, they are actually 'independant'. They are not necessarily there to 'represent us' in government but as legislators.
Are they independent?
I have been to the houses of parliament in the room where they vote on legislation I asked how the voting system works. Basically you have two lines, two boxes at the end of those line which are for those that vote for or against on the legislation. All votes are logged into volumes of books held on the shelves that you and I can read and see.
As it stands at present you assign yourself to a party or go independent, if you assign yourself to a party those in that party can see what line you are in. If everyone was independent I wonder how they could try and banish someone from a party from no toeing the party line?
These are the questions I ask myself.
As regards to the money piled in to maintain schools and hospitals by Labour, it was under the PFI initiative which has cost the country dear in in many respects is no better than the loan sharks lending at incredibly unsustainable rates against your next pay packet. There are many theoritsts to whom you could refer. One is Keyns the other is Hayek. Interesting reading.
I don't mean to be respectful but to read ones view can be subjective. like reading reading my views or opinion it is all subjective really.
Although I believe to have a personal view and opinion is a good thing if we can link it with our own personal experiences. I believe it make you a natural thinking even if what you think is crap.
Although I like reading others views see if I can link anything into my own personal expierences So I shall look into Keyns and Hayek thanks.
Quote by starlightcouple
I know the hospital you are talking about Minx but will not mention it as that would give your location away I believe.
But yes I saw that it had all the staff singing at some point when it opened and now after a very short space of time it looks like closing. There have been many hospitals that have closed over the last twenty years and plenty of A and E departments closing in certain hospitals as well. Currently my elderly Father has been put into Queen Elizabeth in Woolwich, and whilst a nice hospital, it is hugely overcrowded and the A and E department has apparently taken on two other local hospitals A and E patients as the likes of Queen Mary's in Sidcup's A and E has closed.
No sense at all Minx and yes Tories will blame Labour for the financial mess we are in, and the past Labour Government will blame the previous Tory party. But the last Labour Government with Bliar and Brown at the helm were in power for 12 years I think, and failed to recognise the biggest financial disaster in British history, with the banks going bust, and the debt accumulated by people themselves which have now put this country into serious financial trouble with over a pounds worth of debt, and rising daily.
They are all the same but the Tory toffs are worse I think as the top people in that party have not done a days proper work in their lives, after leaving Eton straight into politics with the Tory party.
It is a disgrace that with an ever increasing population ( for whatever that reason may be ),the local amenities are shrinking. How can this country cope with 70 million people in it, and probably closer to 100 million people in 50 years time. Of course Minx money has been invested in schools and hospitals, but to the detriment of some that have had to close as well remember.
Star watch out as there are another people coming to queen Elizabeths
. I have heard through the grapevine that what happened is that to spread numbers of population this hospital was put into trust of Kent and a hospital over spend there is causing the closure of this hospital which was orginally under another trust group.
I can't back this up as of yet but heard through someone in the know so to speak.
If this is the case it is messing about with boundary lines that would have caused this closure to happen and not over spending within the orginal trust.
Which is even more bonkers in my view if this is the case as the post codes don't even add up it isn't in Kent.
Quote by star
They are all the same but the Tory toffs are worse I think as the top people in that party have not done a days proper work in their lives, after leaving Eton straight into politics with the Tory party.
Quote by Wikipedia
In July 1994, Cameron left his role as Special Adviser to work as the Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications. Carlton, which had won the ITV franchise for London weekdays in 1991, was a growing media company which also had film distribution and video producing arms. In 1997 Cameron played up the Company's prospects for digital terrestrial television, for which it joined with Granada television and BSkyB to form British Digital Broadcasting. In a roundtable discussion on the future of broadcasting in 1998 he criticised the effect of overlapping different regulators on the industry.
Carlton's consortium did win the digital terrestrial franchise but the resulting company suffered difficulties in attracting subscribers. In 1999 the Express on Sunday newspaper claimed Cameron had rubbished one of its stories which had given an accurate number of subscribers, because he wanted the number to appear higher than expected. Cameron resigned as Director of Corporate Affairs in February 2001 in order to fight for election to Parliament, although he remained on the payroll as a consultant.
So you see, your comment about Cameron, like him or lump him, is actually a bit harsh...
Sex God
Minxy, GnV's mention of PFI funding gives a clue I think as to why there is a need for rationalising services based on the core expertise of certain hospitals and certain hospital departments. It's true that the Labour Govt saw a lot of expensive building and rebuilding bringing hospitals that had been somewhat neglected under the previous Tory adminstration back up to speed. Question is how much it was an objectively real improvement meeting an objectively real need, and how much of it was more to do with being able to say we built x new hospitals or invested an extra x billion in the NHS than the previous Govt. PFI allowed them to spend with the inital costs being kind of off books and ongoing costs deferred. Not all of that spending was properly warranted or properly directed I'm sure, pure politics.
Unfortunately the ongoing costs now have to be met and if there was any development that might have been unnecessary because streamlining of services and more efficient delivery means the need originally identified could be better served elsewhere then yeah, rationalising provision very much the way forward. On this I'm prepared to accept that in some cases it's not really a cut to services as such. The PFI financed stuff might as well be kept, we've got to pay for it so that might leave older hospitals that could be lucrative for redevelopment with staff and services going elsewhere at lower cost are probably gonna be the first to go. Not saying that's happening in your example, but generally.
I might be wrong on all the above, I've not looked into it enough, but that's my immediate take on it. Be interested in others' comments on it.
Unfortunately the ongoing costs now have to be met and if there was any development that might have been unnecessary because streamlining of services and more efficient delivery means the need originally identified could be better served elsewhere then yeah, rationalising provision very much the way forward. On this I'm prepared to accept that in some cases it's not really a cut to services as such. The PFI financed stuff might as well be kept, we've got to pay for it so that might leave older hospitals that could be lucrative for redevelopment with staff and services going elsewhere at lower cost are probably gonna be the first to go. Not saying that's happening in your example, but generally.
I might be wrong on all the above, I've not looked into it enough, but that's my immediate take on it. Be interested in others' comments on it.
Quote by GnV
They are all the same but the Tory toffs are worse I think as the top people in that party have not done a days proper work in their lives, after leaving Eton straight into politics with the Tory party.
Quote by Wikipedia
In July 1994, Cameron left his role as Special Adviser to work as the Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications. Carlton, which had won the ITV franchise for London weekdays in 1991, was a growing media company which also had film distribution and video producing arms. In 1997 Cameron played up the Company's prospects for digital terrestrial television, for which it joined with Granada television and BSkyB to form British Digital Broadcasting. In a roundtable discussion on the future of broadcasting in 1998 he criticised the effect of overlapping different regulators on the industry.
Carlton's consortium did win the digital terrestrial franchise but the resulting company suffered difficulties in attracting subscribers. In 1999 the Express on Sunday newspaper claimed Cameron had rubbished one of its stories which had given an accurate number of subscribers, because he wanted the number to appear higher than expected. Cameron resigned as Director of Corporate Affairs in February 2001 in order to fight for election to Parliament, although he remained on the payroll as a consultant.
So you see, your comment about Cameron, like him or lump him, is actually a bit harsh...
Ok then GnV..........he had one job.
Quote by Theladyisaminx
Star watch out as there are another people coming to queen Elizabeths
. I have heard through the grapevine that what happened is that to spread numbers of population this hospital was put into trust of Kent and a hospital over spend there is causing the closure of this hospital which was orginally under another trust group.
I can't back this up as of yet but heard through someone in the know so to speak.
If this is the case it is messing about with boundary lines that would have caused this closure to happen and not over spending within the orginal trust.
Which is even more bonkers in my view if this is the case as the post codes don't even add up it isn't in Kent.
Bonkers indeed Minx. Queen Elizabeth's is really just your average NHS Trust hospital. Needs a lick of paint and more staff, typical of the NHS in many cases.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
...................
They are all the same but the Tory toffs are worse I think as the top people in that party have not done a days proper work in their lives, after leaving Eton straight into politics with the Tory party.........................
Rubbish - Do you know why so many MP's are now private school educated? It is because we no longer have Grammar Schools and our education system has become so dumbed down that the cream now only comes from private schools whereas Grammar Schools once provided a steady stream of politicians (and Prime Ministers) as well as high achievers for senior Corporate positions via top Universities.
In my opinion, the loss of Grammar Schools has been the single biggest failing in this country in my lifetime. A sad embittered thought that 20% of pupils were getting a priviliged head start was unfair has brought us to a point that the 20% have been lost in the murk and we have an education system barely capable of educating people to speak English as good as the Eastern Europeans who come here to work speak it as their second language.
Thanks to politics there is now only one way of ensuring that your children get the very best of educations and that is to send them to a private school because Grammar Schools are no longer here. Don't be surprised that morew and more privately educated people appear in Industry and political circles because they are the only ones to have achieved the highest standards of education. (To say they have never worked is nonsense as has already been pointed out).
*** Caveat to say this is a generalisation and occasionally a few will always break through, but the loss of a State sponsored production line of high achievers seems like a death wish to me ***
And to follow on from TH's comments about grammar school education, do we really want to see people in the highest echelons of public life act like an uneducated John Prescott?
I mean, he could hardly string a sentence together and responded to challenges by thumping the electorate!
Very refined, I'm sure
I mean, he could hardly string a sentence together and responded to challenges by thumping the electorate!
Very refined, I'm sure
Can't be bothered to reply Too Hot to be honest. You certainly have lots of hidden agendas though, and very obviously a Tory. 
But elitism I thought had died out years ago?
The bit I will comment on though is.
You do make the wildest of claims at times. No longer here? Really? I shall let others be the judge.
There are 31 in Kent alone and could not be bothered to count the rest. :giggle:
But elitism I thought had died out years ago?
The bit I will comment on though is.
Quote by Too Hot
Thanks to politics there is now only one way of ensuring that your children get the very best of educations and that is to send them to a private school because Grammar Schools are no longer here
You do make the wildest of claims at times. No longer here? Really? I shall let others be the judge.
There are 31 in Kent alone and could not be bothered to count the rest. :giggle:
Sex God
Quote by GnV
And to follow on from TH's comments about grammar school education, do we really want to see people in the highest echelons of public life act like an uneducated John Prescott?
I mean, he could hardly string a sentence together and responded to challenges by thumping the electorate!
Very refined, I'm sure
Uneducated ??? .... from his wikipedia entry
" Prescott managed to overcome the handicap of failing his 11-plus entrance examination for grammar school, going on to graduate from Ruskin College in Oxford, and the University of Hull"
How many university degrees have you got ?
It doesn't change the circumstances Staggs.
Having observed him in action, so to speak, he could hardly chain more than 3 words together and his actions were not of the level one might expect from an Oxford graduate. I reserve judgement on his achievements at Hull.
My educational achievements have nothing at all to do with the comment I made.
Having observed him in action, so to speak, he could hardly chain more than 3 words together and his actions were not of the level one might expect from an Oxford graduate. I reserve judgement on his achievements at Hull.
My educational achievements have nothing at all to do with the comment I made.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
Can't be bothered to reply Too Hot to be honest. You certainly have lots of hidden agendas though, and very obviously a Tory.
But elitism I thought had died out years ago?
The bit I will comment on though is.
Thanks to politics there is now only one way of ensuring that your children get the very best of educations and that is to send them to a private school because Grammar Schools are no longer here
You do make the wildest of claims at times. No longer here? Really? I shall let others be the judge.
There are 31 in Kent alone and could not be bothered to count the rest. :giggle:
Why do you insist on labels and (incorrect) assumptions?
I am a realist Star and I realised long ago that the mollycoddling culture in this country does not prepare children (or adults) for real world experiences. The world is competitive yet we remove competion from schools instead of preparing kids for what it is really going to be like in the world. The result is a complacent country where everyone exzpects something for nothing and that having SKY TV, telly in every room, car on the drive and a foreign holiday is a right - these things should be a rewards for hard work - not a right.
Elitist?? I applaud and respect high achievers because they get off their arse and make things happen if that is elitist then I accept the label.
The Grammar Schools that are here are simply "leftovers" - 164 is insignificant on a national basis. The concept of a Grammar School selection by way of an 11 plus exam and the opportunity for high achievers from local secondary schools to subsequently join A level courses. That concept is no longer here... This was a State sponsorede production line for high achievers.
Quote by Too Hot
Elitist?? I applaud and respect high achievers because they get off their arse and make things happen if that is elitist then I accept the label.
Me too.
There's nothing wrong with an elitist system. The system of French Grande Écoles is unashamedly elitist. The very best are creamed off at a critical point in their education to become the next cadre of politicians, Civil Servants, teachers, acedemics, military officers and the such like. Each Grande École specialises in its own area of expertise and produces people of the highest calibre.
Quote by Too Hot
Why do you insist on labels and (incorrect) assumptions?
What is incorrect? You stated no Grammar schools and I have proved there are, and then you state that 164 is ' insignificant 'No it is not, it is very significant.
Quote by Too Hot
I am a realist Star and I realised long ago that the mollycoddling culture in this country does not prepare children (or adults) for real world experiences. The world is competitive yet we remove competion from schools instead of preparing kids for what it is really going to be like in the world. The result is a complacent country where everyone exzpects something for nothing and that having SKY TV, telly in every room, car on the drive and a foreign holiday is a right - these things should be a rewards for hard work - not a right.
You really do read to many newspapers Too Hot. Where is the ' mollycoddling ' you so often use? I think people who have a Sky tv in every room and holidays abroad would say that is not down to complacency, but bloody hard work. It really is as simple as that, no hidden agendas.
Quote by Too Hot
Elitist?? I applaud and respect high achievers because they get off their arse and make things happen if that is elitist then I accept the label.
How can an 11 year old be a ' high achiever '?. He or she passed an exam at usually ten years of age and then is hand picked to go to a better school with better teachers, and you think that is not State elitism? Well I really despair.
Quote by Too Hot
The Grammar Schools that are here are simply "leftovers" - 164 is insignificant on a national basis. The concept of a Grammar School selection by way of an 11 plus exam and the opportunity for high achievers from local secondary schools to subsequently join A level courses. That concept is no longer here... This was a State sponsorede production line for high achievers.
There are a zillion success stories from kids who do not have the Grammar school luxuries. State schools also have the mentality of separating the clever from the not so clever, and mixing kids with others of the same abilities which is a much better way of doing things. You as I have mentioned above, described no Grammar schools and now only an insignificant amount. Make your mind up as to what you mean. Are there no Grammar schools or are there, where you previously stated..
Quote by Too Hot
Grammar Schools are no longer here.
Sex God
They may be on the rise in the opinion polls, lets see what Thursday brings at the Polls.
Sadly they expanded rapidly, recruiting a record 1,732 candidates to contest Thursday's local elections, but admits it has not had the time or money to vet all of them properly and is is investigating six candidates over links to the BNP and other far right groups or alleged racist and homophobic comments, following stories in national and local newspapers.
Yes all Parties seem to have 'issues' with it's candidates at all levels, I remember the storm over Neil Hamilton and claims he wasn't actually a paid member when he was their MP for Tatton, however surely it shouldn't be down to local papers to do it for them
Sadly they expanded rapidly, recruiting a record 1,732 candidates to contest Thursday's local elections, but admits it has not had the time or money to vet all of them properly and is is investigating six candidates over links to the BNP and other far right groups or alleged racist and homophobic comments, following stories in national and local newspapers.
Yes all Parties seem to have 'issues' with it's candidates at all levels, I remember the storm over Neil Hamilton and claims he wasn't actually a paid member when he was their MP for Tatton, however surely it shouldn't be down to local papers to do it for them
Sex God
Farage on QT admitted that many of their economic policies are now under review (again).
Quite a sad reflection on UK society the rise of UKIP. I live in a northern former industrial town that has always been a labour stronghold and the Conservatives would simply never get a look in. Really bizarre that ardent Socialists are beating the UKIP drum here and trying to vote in an extreme version of the Tory party.
Quite a sad reflection on UK society the rise of UKIP. I live in a northern former industrial town that has always been a labour stronghold and the Conservatives would simply never get a look in. Really bizarre that ardent Socialists are beating the UKIP drum here and trying to vote in an extreme version of the Tory party.
Quote by Too Hot
Farage on QT admitted that many of their economic policies are now under review (again).
Quite a sad reflection on UK society the rise of UKIP.
No it is has given people another choice in politics and Farage speaks a lot of bloody simple common sense, and he says what people agree with. Yes we shall see what happens on Thursday but we all know that for whatever reason, and whether you agree with them or not, the simple fact is they are on the rise as a political party. Farage is making all the right noises at the right time.
Quote by Too Hot
I live in a northern former industrial town that has always been a labour stronghold and the Conservatives would simply never get a look in. Really bizarre that ardent Socialists are beating the UKIP drum here and trying to vote in an extreme version of the Tory party.
But they are not an extreme Tory party. I really wish you would get that idea out of your head. Most of their policies are not supported by the Tory party in the slightest. In the North it seems that Labour supporters are growing tired of the same old Labour party, and the clue is in your above sentence.....Seek and ye shall find.
One of the medias forums has this comment at the top of the tree for yes's...
" UKIP must be doing better than the polls suggest there seems to be a new dirty story every 10minutes. Also of interest it would appear UKIP are starting to take as many voters off Labour ae the Conservatives,this could get very interesting vote for change vote UKIP ". :thumbup:
Sex God
I had a Labour supporter at my door the other day.
Him "Will you vote for so-and-so on Thursday?"
Me "No, I'm voting UKIP",
Him "why?"
Me "Remember all through the Blair and Brown years when we that were concerned with mass immigration were told we were all racists and bigots?......... Payback" !!
His head went down, he must have had loads of the same sorts of answers.
In reality I know the UKIP is not going to be a fairygodmother to the working classes, but at least Nigel says it how it is !! Not like the rest of the PC Westminster bunch.
John
Him "Will you vote for so-and-so on Thursday?"
Me "No, I'm voting UKIP",
Him "why?"
Me "Remember all through the Blair and Brown years when we that were concerned with mass immigration were told we were all racists and bigots?......... Payback" !!
His head went down, he must have had loads of the same sorts of answers.
In reality I know the UKIP is not going to be a fairygodmother to the working classes, but at least Nigel says it how it is !! Not like the rest of the PC Westminster bunch.
John
Sex God
Quote by flower411
But they are not an extreme Tory party. I really wish you would get that idea out of your head. Most of their policies are not supported by the Tory party in the slightest. :
Because they are too right wing even for right wing tories !
Staggering that people will vote for a political party and not know where they stand. Are the electorate really so ignorant to understand that a party made up of extreme disaffected Tories is going to be a party with an extreme Tory view? Considering the recent anti Maggie hysteria - what do they think UKIP are going to bring?
It is worrying that so many people are making the UKIP vote on immigration grounds and are prepared to forsake all other principles and issues in the belief that all our problems are caused by immigrants. Should it not be normal to focus on the underlying economic issues and fundamental social principles rather than saying, in effect.... " I don't know what the problem is and I don't care but I think it must be the foreigners and so that is ll I am concerned about."
It does not say very much about educated and balanced public opinion if no- one who is traditionally socially and caring minded to their neighbour would forego that just to stick it to the foreigners, who, on balance give more to the country than they take out anyway!
I think many are like us, voting UKIP to send a message to the other parties, like the Green Party when it came into being, they got a few successes but never threatened the big parties, but they did make politicians and would be politicians think.
Will I vote for them .... Yes, this time.
Do I want them in power .... no.
Whatever their policies and yes the big ones are immigration and the EU, maybe the next government will realise how important those things are to the people and come up with a more reasonable plan to control immigration better and stop the EU having total rule over us.
Will I vote for them .... Yes, this time.
Do I want them in power .... no.
Whatever their policies and yes the big ones are immigration and the EU, maybe the next government will realise how important those things are to the people and come up with a more reasonable plan to control immigration better and stop the EU having total rule over us.
Protest votes can come back and bite the electorate very hard.
It's a dangerous game indeed.
France voted in a protest election twice in recent times. In the second round of the first election in 2002, they were left with either the possibility of of the National Front or Chirac. Of course, Chirac won as an extreme right candidate would not have been tolerated but what really happened is that the field of choice was narrowed, leaving no real opportunity for choice.
The second time, last year, was just as bad but in a quite different way. The electorate wanted to send out a message to Sarkozy to reign in on his arrogance but instead, in the decisive second round, the protest vote ended with the third choice candidate of the Socialist Party's primaries - in total disarray - being elected narrowly and now they are regretting it with a passion.
Francois Hollande is the most unpopular President of France in living memory and an unmitigated disaster on both home and international stages.
I've heard dedicated socialists express regret that they voted for Hollande in areas where the socialists have always done well on a local basis and they just wish they turn the clock back!
If you can imagine Britain being led by the bungling duffle coated bottle stopper glasses wearing Michael Foot, you have an inkling of an idea of what protest voting can do for a country. Thankfully, it didn't happen but Britain's modern day equivalent in France sneaked in, just the same.
Different people and different times now of course but the risks are far too high to leave choices to politicians and fanatics.
But who else is there?
It's a dangerous game indeed.
France voted in a protest election twice in recent times. In the second round of the first election in 2002, they were left with either the possibility of of the National Front or Chirac. Of course, Chirac won as an extreme right candidate would not have been tolerated but what really happened is that the field of choice was narrowed, leaving no real opportunity for choice.
The second time, last year, was just as bad but in a quite different way. The electorate wanted to send out a message to Sarkozy to reign in on his arrogance but instead, in the decisive second round, the protest vote ended with the third choice candidate of the Socialist Party's primaries - in total disarray - being elected narrowly and now they are regretting it with a passion.
Francois Hollande is the most unpopular President of France in living memory and an unmitigated disaster on both home and international stages.
I've heard dedicated socialists express regret that they voted for Hollande in areas where the socialists have always done well on a local basis and they just wish they turn the clock back!
If you can imagine Britain being led by the bungling duffle coated bottle stopper glasses wearing Michael Foot, you have an inkling of an idea of what protest voting can do for a country. Thankfully, it didn't happen but Britain's modern day equivalent in France sneaked in, just the same.
Different people and different times now of course but the risks are far too high to leave choices to politicians and fanatics.
But who else is there?
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Protest votes can come back and bite the electorate very hard.
It's a dangerous game indeed.
France voted in a protest election twice in recent times. In the second round of the first election in 2002, they were left with either the possibility of of the National Front or Chirac. Of course, Chirac won as an extreme right candidate would not have been tolerated but what really happened is that the field of choice was narrowed, leaving no real opportunity for choice.
The second time, last year, was just as bad but in a quite different way. The electorate wanted to send out a message to Sarkozy to reign in on his arrogance but instead, in the decisive second round, the protest vote ended with the third choice candidate of the Socialist Party's primaries - in total disarray - being elected narrowly and now they are regretting it with a passion.
Francois Hollande is the most unpopular President of France in living memory and an unmitigated disaster on both home and international stages.
I've heard dedicated socialists express regret that they voted for Hollande in areas where the socialists have always done well on a local basis and they just wish they turn the clock back!
If you can imagine Britain being led by the bungling duffle coated bottle stopper glasses wearing Michael Foot, you have an inkling of an idea of what protest voting can do for a country. Thankfully, it didn't happen but Britain's modern day equivalent in France sneaked in, just the same.
Different people and different times now of course but the risks are far too high to leave choices to politicians and fanatics.
But who else is there?
i would agree G
but what exactly should we do with our vote ??
im not sure whats worse voting to prove a point or not voting at all
Quote by Too Hot
Staggering that people will vote for a political party and not know where they stand. Are the electorate really so ignorant to understand that a party made up of extreme disaffected Tories is going to be a party with an extreme Tory view? Considering the recent anti Maggie hysteria - what do they think UKIP are going to bring?
It is worrying that so many people are making the UKIP vote on immigration grounds and are prepared to forsake all other principles and issues in the belief that all our problems are caused by immigrants. Should it not be normal to focus on the underlying economic issues and fundamental social principles rather than saying, in effect.... " I don't know what the problem is and I don't care but I think it must be the foreigners and so that is ll I am concerned about."
It does not say very much about educated and balanced public opinion if no- one who is traditionally socially and caring minded to their neighbour would forego that just to stick it to the foreigners, who, on balance give more to the country than they take out anyway!
Same old story TH. I have heard all this before from you, and how you and " others " use the "Johny Foreigner" or the " immigrant " word constantly. When are you going to wake up and realise that people are not concerned about the immigrants already here as much as the, immigrants about to arrive. UKIP is the only party that talks some kind of sense on the issue, the rest just fumble around it.
This country is is dire shite economically and yet it seems that come later this year a new wave will be allowed here. A lot of these new immigrants will be bringing no skills to the UK at all, so the arguement that it is good for Britain is nonsense. We are full and our services are at breaking point, and yet Cameron offers weak and limp wristed ideas on solving it. Like trying to make it less attractive to come here, or by stating they will not be entitled to use the NHS for free, or to get Social housing when thousands of British people who have been on the list for sometimes years cannot get a Social property. But Farage has already pointed out even on QT the other night, that as part of Europe Cameron CANNOT do that, so why Cameron keeps saying it is what he is going to when he clearly cannot is just a ruse on talking tough, but in reality about as soft as ice cream left out on a summers day. No convictions with Cameron just typical Tory hot air with no substance.
But you are clever Th I will give you that. Most people are more concerned with getting out of Europe, a point that you constantly gloss over for your convenience. When this country has a situation whereby we have lost our identity and our ability to act upon our own laws without interference from Europe or their Judges, where we cannot deport criminals and dangerous ones at that, and then we have our elected Government suggesting that the only way around it is to " opt out " of the Human rights laws to be able to deport Quatada as an example, then people know something is seriously wrong with the system.
Europe TH is as big an issue for UKIP supporters as immigration, and yet it is always the immigrants you use as your example. Yesterday we had that mad Ken what's his name, saying that Ukip was a party full of clowns, coming from the biggest clown in politics that's a bit rich coming from that total Coco the clown.
I think UKIP have the Tory's in particular a bit worried, hence the smearing campaign that they have adopted over the last week or so, as if the Tory party are as clean as a whistle eh? I am not sure this weeks local elections will show too much, when it really counts is in 2015 at the General election, which is country wide, and not just local.
Remember TH........the immigration problem is not about hating them, it is simply about stemming the tide, and most people I speak to including me by the way, want a stop to the endless interference from Europe. I want this country to be able to control itself again, I want convicted terrorists booted out after they have served their sentence. People are sick and tired of reading stories like the one about the illegal immigrant who mowed down a teenage girl, who had no insurance and no MOT, and yet killed her. He should not have even been here, and after his sentence he used the " right to a family life " as an excuse to stay in the UK . This was in 2010 and Cameron was saying the same rubbish then as he is now. Read the story and THIS is what people are so against about being in Europe.
The Judge agreed, but the family of that poor girl were distraught at the ruling. The " right to a family life " is of course a true statement but it is used constantly by criminals to escape deportation. Things like that is what people want stopped, and I really wish you would focus a bit more on the Europe issue with UKIP, and not keep harping on and on about the immigrants as your only debating tool.
If you really think that UKIP are a nothing party, full of clowns and closet racists, who have not got a cat in hells chance on getting anywhere in British politics, why are you so bothered that you constantly have to bring them down? You and others are running scared TH, lets wait for 2015 to get a more creditable gauge on UKIP.
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
Protest votes can come back and bite the electorate very hard.
It's a dangerous game indeed.
France voted in a protest election twice in recent times. In the second round of the first election in 2002, they were left with either the possibility of of the National Front or Chirac. Of course, Chirac won as an extreme right candidate would not have been tolerated but what really happened is that the field of choice was narrowed, leaving no real opportunity for choice.
The second time, last year, was just as bad but in a quite different way. The electorate wanted to send out a message to Sarkozy to reign in on his arrogance but instead, in the decisive second round, the protest vote ended with the third choice candidate of the Socialist Party's primaries - in total disarray - being elected narrowly and now they are regretting it with a passion.
Francois Hollande is the most unpopular President of France in living memory and an unmitigated disaster on both home and international stages.
I've heard dedicated socialists express regret that they voted for Hollande in areas where the socialists have always done well on a local basis and they just wish they turn the clock back!
If you can imagine Britain being led by the bungling duffle coated bottle stopper glasses wearing Michael Foot, you have an inkling of an idea of what protest voting can do for a country. Thankfully, it didn't happen but Britain's modern day equivalent in France sneaked in, just the same.
Different people and different times now of course but the risks are far too high to leave choices to politicians and fanatics.
But who else is there?
i would agree G
but what exactly should we do with our vote ??
im not sure whats worse voting to prove a point or not voting at all
In a national parliamentary election you should vote for the party whose policies you believe might best fix the broken economy.
In a local election you should vote for the people who you feel will do most about your local problems and issues.
