Lexis

As some of you may know, Tony Blair has called a general election for May 5th. All the parties are going hell for leather on the campaign trail.

I thought I'd start a thread on this as it could have wide ranging implications on an internaitonal scale.

Labour - Tony Blair's party. Traditionally left-wing but has moved further to the centre over the last few years in an attempt to create a "Third Way". Has isolated a lot of firm supporters over Iraq, the introduction of top-up fees for university students and a seemingly one way relationship with President Bush.

Conservatives - led by Michael Howard. Traditionally right wing, has moved further right on issues like immigration in recent years. Plans to introduce tax cuts and impose quotas for asylum seekers. Supported Iraq (but was reportedly berated by Karl Rove for being critical of intelligence at Prime Minister's Question Time).

Liberal Democrats - led by Charles Kennedy. Traditionally a centre party but seems to have been pushed left by Labour. Promises free personal care for the eldery, free dental and eye check-ups, a focus on the environment and civil liberties.

There are also the far right parties the BNP, UK Independence Party and Veritas, the far-left wing Respect, the Green Party and regional parties for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Obviously, Blair has a good relationship with Bush. However, the policies of the Conservatives and Howard are very much more in tune with the Republican point of view. If they were to win, they could be a match made in heaven.

Latest polls give Labour a four point lead on the Conservatives, the Liberals trailing behind. As angry as I am at Blair, I'm going to have to vote for them - otherwise, I fear we'll end up with another convervative government.

So, what do you guys think?

For more info check out http://www.politics.co.uk/

Lorna

I honestly don't think there is much chance of anyone but Labour winning. Not because most people actually support Labour or what they have done in the time they have been in power - especially in the last couple of years with Iraq. But, Labour is the lesser of the 3 evils. I don't trust Blair as far as I could throw him! but, I trust the other two leaders even less.

Not that I'll be voting for any of them! I'm going to vote for the Green Party. They may not have a chance of getting in power, but they are hoping to get a seat in Parliament this election, so the more votes they can get, the better. Plus, I actually agree with their policies, which is more than I do for any of the main three parties.

It will be interesting to see how the results go on the 5th though. There is no doubt that the Conservative party will win in the area I live in! We're like one of two Conservative areas in the entire country, and they always win by a land slide!

Avatar

It's interesting to see neocons actually hoping for Blair to win, that's for sure. I'm not sure what I would have voted if I could have... I have many, many problems with Tony Blair, but if I had voted Lib Dem and the Tories had gotten into power, I would have been kicking myself.

Scooby_Doo

I got my voting cards put them straight into the bin coz it doesn't matter who you vote for they all say they will do this and that and then don't, typical males

sum1

Sexist gender-bashing not appreciated.

Lexis

There are lots of women standing at this election and many more who are either current or prospective members of the cabinet.

If you don't vote then you're giving up your chance to at least try and make a difference in the way the system works.

sum1

I guess Scooby-doo sees them as "typical males" too.

JW77

Quite a few posts on this board aren't appreciated by some people, sum1. But we usually allow them anyway. Maybe that'll change soon enough though.

I'm sure everyone realizes that, but in some areas the candidates are all male. Besides, maybe she was referring to the three people that you mentioned in your first post...the actual candidates for the top spot (that have a chance), and not the current or prospective members of the cabinet.

I think voting is important, and I always will. And I believe that everyone that can vote should. But at the same time, I don't think voting is the only chance a person has to make a difference in the way any system works. And I think that if people believe that, then they're selling themselves short.

By the way, in your opinion, what kind of wide ranging implications do you think the election will have on an international scale? Just curious about your thoughts on that.

elisheva

Wow, there's lots of things that stand out about this comment, where do I start.
1. typical males? wow, sexism much? obvious sexism against men, assuming all men are dishonest and sleazy. and a slightly more subtle sexism against women; you're implying that there are no women in politics at all, that politics is a purely male world. which USED to be the case yeah but women are more & more involved, in many areas women are running for various positions. and if they're not running for a seat, they're working in the background. do you think women just stay at home and Leave The Politics To The Men? how awful.
2.. cynicism regarding politics makes me sad, if you're just cynical and say nothing will change no one's honest they're all crooked they're all liars - well, then, you're not doing anything to change it, youre just bitching about it, which is useless and unprodictive. the ability to vote is such a GREAT thing, i hate to see people throw it away. frankly it's that kind of apathetic and cynical attitude that makes me a leeetle bit annoyed.
sure, voting isnt the only way to make a difference. but it's an important way and everyone should take advantage of it. most people are unlikely to get actively involved. voting gives them a chance to do something at least every few years, without too much commitment of time or effort.

JW77

Wow, I can't believe that people are reading so much into that statement.

How awful indeed.

Not being able to joke or laugh about certain things makes me said. Especially if it has to do with politics.

And why is that wrong? Because others say so?

That just doesn't mean much to me.

The ability to vote is a great thing. But so is the freedom to disagree with others about the importance of voting, and to not exercise, or to throw away that ability.

Annoyed because people don't agree with you on its importance? If so, you'll never get people to see things the same way as you by criticizing them. Trust me on that.

I'll always agree that voting is important. But I'll never look down on, or criticize anyone, for not voting. I'd much rather spend my time trying to explain why I feel that it's important.

Lexis

In some they're all female - I'm spoilt for choice. But regardless, I still think that dismissing the idea of voting because the big three are just "typical men" is not exactly a positive development for democracy. I'm not a huge fan of either of the big three but I want the party that is closest to my beliefs to win - therefore, although I am angry at Blair for the mess in Iraq and tuition fees, I believe Britain has been improving under Labour.

I made a ill-thought out comment. I believe in Labour so I want them to win (so I vote for them) - but if I was someone who didn't believe in Labour, I would want the Tories to win. To get that idealogical change, voting is the only method. You can change other areas of a system via direct action and the like but anything else would be like trying to turn the Republicans into Democrats - almost totally impossible.

[/QUOTE]

Well, for starters, the Liberals want a complete pull out of troops in Iraq as soon as possible. While I don't think they have a hope of winning, if Labour lose a lot fo their seats, they may rely on the Liberals to get things done.

Also, if the Conservatives were to win, what would happen to Gordon Brown's plan to ease poverty in Africa. Is that something they still want to pursue?

If Labour wins, will Blair continue to press Bush for commitment to reducing climate change? That has been one of the criticisms - Blair gives seemingly endless support for the President but doesn't get it back for his objectives.

I did think it said a lot about the feelings of the British people about Bush - images of him and Blair standing next to one another are being used on lots of campaign materials to remind people of their "special" relationship.

sum1

What's being read into that statement is what's actually IN that statement. Nobody should go making vicious generalizations about a whole gender. And they should expect some serious disagreement if they do.
Not everything's a laughing matter or fair game for joking. For example, some people think it's ok to go around making racist jokes and they think people who don't are "sad". Doesn't make them right.
Elisheva already explained in her post why it's wrong. Because it's just complaining and doing nothing. I mean, "I'm bothered by something, therefore I'll do nothing about it"? Doesn't sound like a very productive approach to me. If people want to take that approach, well, that's their right, but other people have the right to dislike that and disagree.And so is the freedom to disagree with views that say voting is pointless, the freedom to dislike it when people express apathy over voting. Which is the freedom elisheva was exercising. She was exercising the right to disagree. She's as much right to her view as Scooby-Doo has to hers.
If that was the case, a lot of motivated and convincing people wouldn't be motivating and convincing other people the way they are. Being annoyed at disagreement and criticising views one dislikes has been repeatedly proven NOT an impediment to convincing people.
Well, I have to say, you seem to me to be doing a pretty good job looking down on somebody for disagreeing with Scooby_Doo's view.

LittleMilkJug

Is screaming Lord Such still trying to get elected?

JW77

I'm not British, but from what I've read, it would seem that Britain is improving under the Labour party. So I can understand why you'd vote that way despite your views on Blair. I happen to like the guy though.

Anyway, I agree with most of your comment. Dismissing the idea of voting for any reason probably isn't a positive development for democracy. But then again, simply continuing to vote on representatives isn't necessarily a positive development for democracy either. At least not in my opinion.

Ideological change from party to party...yes. I agree with that.

Is that a widespread want for the Liberals? Just curious. I mean, we have liberals here who probably believe the same, but I don't know how widespread it is, so I'm curious.

I'm not completely informed on the conservative views on poverty in Africa, but I would be interested in seeing how they would deal with that if they were to win.

I'm sure Blair will continue to press Bush on quite a few issues if Labour wins. But how much more good do you think that will do? Just kidding. Don't mean to joke about that.

I'm sure Bush might be inclined to support Blair on certain issues...but I don't know that climate issues will be on that list. As far as having images of Bush and Blair standing next to each other, that's pretty funny. That's all I got in the mail before our election...images of Bush on all of the material for local Republican candidates...and statements of agreement with Bush on certain issues by some Democrats. It's interesting how it has an opposite effect in other nations.

...or vicious generalizations about an entire nation, or continent...like you've done in the past. I agree completely.

But when you start saying that a person is implying certain things (like there are no women in politics), you're reading a bit into it whether you want to admit it or not. Of course, that may very well have been what she was trying to say, but she didn't say that.

I agree. And that's why I said "certain" things. If I felt that everything was a laughing matter, then I probably would've said so.

Oh, and if people think that others are sad because they don't make jokes like the ones you talked about, they're not really wrong either. They're free to believe that those people are sad.

Yes, I read her explanation...and now yours as well. But again, why is that wrong? Because you guys say so? I see. Now, it may be wrong for you, and that's cool. But why try to tell someone else what's right or wrong for them?

Like you said, people have the right to dislike anything and everything. And they can disagree all they want, but it doesn't make another person's action or inaction wrong. Well, again, maybe they're wrong for you. But like you said, it's their right to take that approach.

I couldn't agree more. And that's why I commented. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry for you, dude.

Certain people, maybe.

Now, I admit that my statement might have been better off had I said "only" criticizing them. But until you show me the statistics, or where it's been repeatedly proven, I'm not all that uncomfortable sticking to my statement.

By the way, who are these motivated and convincing people that you're talking about? I'm always interested in reading views or tactics that are different than my own.

Oh, but I never said that looking down on someone was necessarily wrong...or that I never did it. I simply said that I wouldn't look down on someone for not voting.

elisheva

hey, it's there. Scooby-Doo may not have intended all of it, but it's implied. And btw, just as a general disclaimer, I am not trying to attack Scooby-Doo - I'm not even criticising the content of her specifc post anymore, now I'm thinking more about the cynical attitude in general.

Please don't sneer, it's rude.

oh don't you worry, i can laugh plenty at stuff in politics, and i do. laughing at life's ironies or people being silly is NOT, however, the same as cynicism - the attitude exhibited by the statement "it won't change anything, they're all the same." (and I'M not the one reading cynicism into statements of that sort - sociologists and political scientists are. politicial cynicism is a well-documented and researched attitude. it's also a Bad Thing.)

why is that WRONG? "oh, here's a problem i see; however, instead of getting off my ass and doing something about it, i will proceed to bitch uselessly about it and be totally cynical about the possibility of change. THAT sure will make the world a better place!" See, if you can't see something wrong with that attitude, I don't know how I'll ever be able to point it out to you. To me the flaws of such an attitude stick out prominently (like neon yellow polka dots ). Anyway, I'm probably more sensitive to picking up on that attitude than most, cause I really sincerely view apathy as one of the great crimes of our society. And apathy often goes hand in hand with cynicism.

Frankly, nor does much in your post to me. It feels like you're just brushing away and belittling my stated opinions, not bothering to put forward much more than a bundle of loosely tied together platitudes and a heaping pile of condescension.
anyway, so objecting to choosing passivity and whining isntead of choosing active efforts to change things "doesn't mean much" to you? i find that hard to understand, but hey, you have the right to your opinions.

Sure, people can disagree with me, they have that right. And I have the right to disagree with them, and to see throwing away the right to vote as close to criminal and totally unjustifiable.

Well, I'm sorry that I care so much about the world that I think it's a crime to sit back and toss away the easiest avenue open to us to make a difference. Maybe if I was more apathetic and cynical I wouldn't get annoyed - but how many great movements for change have been started by apathetic people? So sue me, spots of me are still stubbornly and naively idealistic - I actually believe there's potential for change, isn't THAT crazy? seriously, kids these days.

and yet, from the tone of your post, youre doing plenty looking down on me for expressing my opinion. how strange.