How would you vote?

[Opinionated]

I thought it would be interesting to see how many of us would pin our colours to the mast so to speak. So if an election were called tomorrow who would you vote for?

[JAMC]

No mainstream party represents my personal views, or has policies that I believe will ultimately benefit society.

[Opinionated]

I'd definately spoil - not turning up is just not an option for me so its write "none of the above" on the ballot! That or possibly single issue/Green.

[Tete123]

I'd definately spoil - not turning up is just not an option for me so its write "none of the above" on the ballot!

I never understand this as a form of protest. Could you explain as I am genuinely interested?

[Opinionated]

As a woman not turning up (which can be dismissed easily by a government as apathy thereby granting them carte blanche) is tantamount to spitting on my Grandmothers grave. Too many people died, were tortured (cat and mouse act) or disabled themselves walking from Jarrow just for me to get the basic right to vote for staying at home to be an option.
Just suppose (suspension of reality required) that there was 100% turn out on polling day and every single person wrote "not good enough", wouldn't that be the largest anarchic protest possible?
Now I know that is incredibly unlikely - and my little protest means nothing to anyone but me, however I think a despotic government would have more trouble taking the vote away from a people who at least turned up than just being able to say "well they didn't bother turning up so thats a mandate by proxy". It's nothing more than a vote of conscience really, but it makes me feel better for a few hours untill the votes are counted!
Hope that helps!

[Tete123]

As a woman not turning up (which can be dismissed easily by a government as apathy thereby granting them carte blanche) is tantamount to spitting on my Grandmothers grave. Too many people died, were tortured (cat and mouse act) or disabled themselves walking from Jarrow just for me to get the basic right to vote for staying at home to be an option.
Just suppose (suspension of reality required) that there was 100% turn out on polling day and every single person wrote "not good enough", wouldn't that be the largest anarchic protest possible?
Now I know that is incredibly unlikely - and my little protest means nothing to anyone but me, however I think a despotic government would have more trouble taking the vote away from a people who at least turned up than just being able to say "well they didn't bother turning up so thats a mandate by proxy. It's nothing more than a vote of conscience really, but it makes me feel better for a few hours untill the votes are counted!
Hope that helps!

Yeah that does, thank you. To be honest I was looking at it from the 'collective' rather than 'individual' effect.

[DTE]

I vote Liberal. They are the closest to my line of political thinking, even though some of them, like Sarah-whats-her-face, you know the young Supernanny looking one, really do my head in. It is kind of a wasted vote, as they'll never get in, but I'd rather believe in my vote than just settle for someone else.

But its liberal at the mo. Although Cameron could win me over if he grew some balls on subjects like the EU, immigration policy, education and foreign affairs.

My 2 cents.:Cool:

[Midas]

As a woman not turning up (which can be dismissed easily by a government as apathy thereby granting them carte blanche) is tantamount to spitting on my Grandmothers grave. Too many people died, were tortured (cat and mouse act) or disabled themselves walking from Jarrow just for me to get the basic right to vote for staying at home to be an option.
Just suppose (suspension of reality required) that there was 100% turn out on polling day and every single person wrote "not good enough", wouldn't that be the largest anarchic protest possible?
Now I know that is incredibly unlikely - and my little protest means nothing to anyone but me, however I think a despotic government would have more trouble taking the vote away from a people who at least turned up than just being able to say "well they didn't bother turning up so thats a mandate by proxy. It's nothing more than a vote of conscience really, but it makes me feel better for a few hours untill the votes are counted!
Hope that helps!

As someone who hasn't voted for years in my own form of protest I'm not so sure that I'd have looked anywhere near as deeply into history as you've done, however spoiling your ballot paper with "none of the above" is certainly an effective, and far more noticeable, alternative. In fact I will do just that at the next one. Thanks for the idea

[Opinionated]

I think perhaps I should have included another option perhaps "none of your damn business, it is a secret ballot after all!"

[13th November 1002]

None of the above hits the spot, especially as the first three have a gnats doodah between them when it comes to most policies.

BNP too extreme, Green too daft.

If a gun was held to my head, or if it was mandatory, I would plump for the Conservatives with one proviso, no Kenneth Clarke. If Clarke is present it would be UKIP.

[Albion 69]

I take it Expounder hasn't seen this thread yet .... the Labour vote remains on zero

[Midas]

I take it Expounder hasn't seen this thread yet .... the Labour vote remains on zero

I think you spoke too soon

[Albion 69]

I think you spoke too soon

The worrying thing is that vote didn't come from Exp !

[LA]

My vote will either go to the Conservatives or the United Kingdom Independence Party.

My decision to vote Conservative has been weakened by the decision to appoint Ken Clarke back into the Front Bench of the Shadow Cabinet.

[Midas]

The worrying thing is that vote didn't come from Exp !

... goes to get his hunting rifle out of the cabinet ...

[LA]

We need to watch out for
FED UP, One

The BNP supporters.

[FED UP]

I came on this forum to air my views not to be censored for my views, if people want to enquire of my "Ideology" and politcal stance they must be willing to listen !!!!!!!!!!

[LA]

I came on this forum to air my views not to be censored for my views, if people want to enquire of my "Ideology" and politcal stance they must be willing to listen !!!!!!!!!!

For your interest I was not being serious. I accept the views of anyone regardless of ideological differences. I am willing to discuss with anyone from fascists to communists, liberals to Conservatives.

[Trouble43]

I'd vote for the single issues -those that are standing for a particular reasons. UKIP or anyone who gives us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - NOT someone who sneaks off to sign said treaty in private. Someone who would scrap the plans for the third runway at Heathrow and does more than constantly bankroll the banks to 'kickstart the economy'.

Someone who, when they say things like 'British jobs for British workers', 'tough on crime and the causes of crime' and (the all time classic) 'education, education, education', actually mean it and do something about it. Someone who allows us real democratic freedom, instead of further eroding them like Brown has in his steps to be the true Orwellian 'Big Brother'.

Oh and, finally, someone who does NOT 'grin and spin'; basically an honest politician for a change. In retrospect that's never going to happen is it?

[LA]

I'd vote for the single issues -those that are standing for a particular reasons. UKIP or anyone who gives us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - NOT someone who sneaks off to sign said treaty in private; scraps plans for the third runway at Heathrow and does more than constantly bankroll the banks to 'kickstart the economy'.

Someone who, when they say things like 'British jobs for British workers', 'tough on crime and the causes of crime' and (the all time classic) 'education, education, education', actually mean it and do something about it. Someone who allows us real democratic freedom, instead of further eroding them like Brown has in his steps to be the true Orwellian 'Big Brother'.

Oh and, finally, someone who does NOT 'grin and spin'; basically an honest politician for a change. In retrospect that's never going to happen is it?

Though I completely agree with you, UKIP would be an adequate choice, but you are incorrect. UKIP are no longer a single issue party. They have expanded their legislative program to cover all aspects of policy from education to crime and foreign affairs.

When I am running vote me lol

[Trouble43]

Though I completely agree with you, UKIP would be an adequate choice, but you are incorrect. UKIP are no longer a single issue party. They have expanded their legislative program to cover all aspects of policy from education to crime and foreign affairs.

When I am running vote me lol

What are their views on the third heathrow runway? I mean it's a nonsense really, but the current government seem hell bent on having it.

I know they want the Lisbon Treaty scrapped; well, at least our involvement in it so that's a plus.

But what are their plans for the criminal justice system? Do they intend to start treating the criminals as what they are - criminals; and victims as the real victims of crime?

Oh and what are their views on 'British jobs for British workers'? I hope they haven't taken the same attitude as Brown and Mandelson?

Finally, and just as importantly, is Kilroy-Silk still involved with them? If he is, I'm afraid - even if they were the best party in the world - that would definitely be a deal breaker.

As for voting for you - hmmm.....if your party was likely to follow through with these questions, then yeah why not?

[LA]

What are their views on the third heathrow runway? I mean it's a nonsense really, but the current government seem hell bent on having it.

I am not entirely sure. Dont quote me on this, this Is what I think was said once:

Nigel once stated that the government are correct in saying we will need it, but we don't need it know. If we improve efficiency in Heathrow there will be no need for another runaway.

I know they want the Lisbon Treaty scrapped; well, at least our involvement in it so that's a plus.

They want the European Constitution scrapped.. I mean Lisbon Treaty scrapped. They want us out of the European Union and want us to have a free trade agreement like Norway and Switzerland have

But what are their plans for the criminal justice system? Do they intend to start treating the criminals as what they are - criminals; and victims as the real victims of crime?

They believe in scrapping the human rights act so that criminals no longer have a permenant shield. They believe criminals should be adequately punished in reflection to their crime.

They believe in a fully entrenched bill of rights so that criminals are criminals and victims are victims. They believe greater support and help should be for victims.

Oh and what are their views on 'British jobs for British workers'? I hope they haven't taken the same attitude as Brown and Mandelson?

He believes that though there should not be laws stating only British workers allowed, as he recognises the benefit controlled immigration can bring. But he does believe in encouraging businesses to take on more British workers.
I am currently not 100% on their view on this. You should email them, they generally answer quite quickly.

Finally, and just as importantly, is Kilroy-Silk still involved with them? If he is, I'm afraid - even if they were the best party in the world - that would definitely be a deal breaker.

I do not believe so

As for voting for you - hmmm.....if your party was likely to follow through with these questions, then yeah why not?

Yes I have one supporter.

[TellMeMore]

For your interest I was not being serious. I accept the views of anyone regardless of ideological differences. I am willing to discuss with anyone from fascists to communists, liberals to Conservatives.

From fascists to communists? You'll have to explain the difference please, I wasn't aware there was one.

[Trouble43]

From fascists to communists? You'll have to explain the difference please, I wasn't aware there was one.

Whilst its common knowledge that both fascism and communism are variations on authoritarian states, where (you could argue) in both cases the wishes of the individual are beneath the wants of the state, and where a military/police type force ensures the leadership remain in control. Additionally the government retains most of the control over the economic production and usually the social/welfare policy - as oppose to the 'free trade' attitude of countries such as the US.

However there are notable differences between the two also. Fascism is usually driven by nationalistic/ethnic policies. Ie the fascist party in Germany (later the Nazi's) went out of their way to paint the German Jewish population (and later the rest of Europe's Jews) as the 'bad guys'. They blamed them for all Germany's ills, even losing the first world war.

They believed, as most fascist states do, that the population's first and foremost loyalty belongs to the state. Family and racial ties come a very poor second. Your loyalty to your leader and the government is paramount.

Also, whilst Fascism maintains tight controls over corporate production, they do not force a take over as most communist states do. Fascists are happy to 'have a finger in the pie' so to speak, without taking the whole pie; communists want to own the pie too.

Fascists believe in being tied to commerce; communists believe in owning it. The only time fascists have a problem with commerce is if the company concerned is owned by an ethnically unwanted directorship/owner/workforce. Then steps will be taken to 'cleanse' the company. Communists believe in owning every company and running it to their rules. However it is rare that in a communist state that ethnicity becomes an issue within commerce.

This is my understanding of the similarities and differences between fascism and communism anyway.

[LA]

Trouble, it is worth noting not all fascist movements involved race. Only Nazi Germany's Fascist movement involved race.

[Trouble43]

Sorry LA, but race comes into it with most fascist parties - look at the BNP.

[LA]

Sorry LA, but race comes into it with most fascist parties - look at the BNP.

I did not include modern fascist movements. Probably should have done.

However, in regards to past fascist movements, only Germany's Nazi Party were racial.

[Trouble43]

I did not include modern fascist movements. Probably should have done.

However, in regards to past fascist movements, only Germany's Nazi Party were racial.

That's true; but the rest of the points that raise the differences between the two are fairly accurate I think.

It makes me wonder though why the modern fascist parties are all so racially motivated if only one or two were before? Is it because they tend to embrace the Nazi ideals more these days; or just that they see the more racially diverse culture of today as an easy target to try and win support?

[Opinionated]

Trouble, it is worth noting not all fascist movements involved race. Only Nazi Germany's Fascist movement involved race.

I don't think that's true LA, the final solution and the battle for the arian race may have been a stronger objective for the Nazis than any other of it's fascist peers, but as the establishment of an autocratic state requires the people to be so afraid they are happy to sacrifice liberty and democracy, the creation of an "other" as a common enemy is usually along racial lines. Fascism has been in many ways connected to the theory of social darminism and as such is clearly racist (as well as supporting eugenics and forced euthanasia etc).
Mussolini's attitude to race has been sited by some historians as proof that fascism and racist attitude do not always go hand in hand, but Mussolini himself changed position on the issue many times. Possibly he was considering a way to divorce himself from German allies at a future date, possibly Jews weren't his enemy of choice. He did however in his early days say this:
"...the nation—deprived of the young life—blood of new generations—is now made up of people who are old and degenerate and cannot defend itself against a younger people which launches an attack on the now unguarded frontiers...This will happen, and not just to cities and nations, but on an infinitely greater scale: the whole White race, the Western race can be submerged by other coloured races which are multiplying at a rate unknown in our race".
Nationalism which is always a main tennant of fascist movements is inherently racist in nature - it has to be because it needs to identify a national characteristic to "defend".

[Cicero]

I'd have to go with the Lib Dems. Althrough I'm not the biggest fan of Nick Clegg (or Tavish Scott) as leader, I think the Lib Dems are closer to my views and offer a better chance for change; if you're just going to go from Labour to the Conservatives-what's the point? there's so little difference between them now in terms of policy and ideology that all you're going get is more of the same. The Lib Dems are far more progressive and those moaning that it's a "waste of time" and "they'll never get in" are missing the point-taking part in the voting process is never a waste of time and public perception of the Lib Dems is shifting, as they are now starting to be seen as a viable poltical alternative, if you don't think they can win as it is, then start taking an active part in the campaign, otherwise, just voting, then moaning about it being a "wasted vote" is meaningless.

[Marxist Nutter]

I would like to see the option 'none of the above' (or for those who know about such things, a RON category) on all ballot papers in the UK. If RON wins once then nominations are re-opened, if Ron wins twice then the government is forced to reform the electoral process and present these reforms to the public in the form of a referendum.

[Midas]

I would like to see the option 'none of the above' (or for those who know about such things, a RON category) on all ballot papers in the UK. If RON wins once then nominations are re-opened, if Ron wins twice then the government is forced to reform the electoral process and present these reforms to the public in the form of a referendum.

A damn good idea there MN

[JAMC]

I'm beginning to think I might seriously have to vote Lib Dem in the next election as a block vote to try and prevent the otherwise inevitable Tory victory. Although where I live is a Labour seat (and has been since the 80's), the chances of Labour holding it this time round are zero.

[Trevortt]

I'm beginning to think I might seriously have to vote Lib Dem in the next election as a block vote to try and prevent the otherwise inevitable Tory victory. Although where I live is a Labour seat (and has been since the 80's), the chances of Labour holding it this time round are zero.

Only fools vote Lib dems!

[LA]

Ahhh Trevortt is back!

[Trouble43]

Only fools vote Lib dems!

Oh and voting BNP is better how, exactly? I wouldn't vote LibDem, but only because I think they're too weak willed to be a party to definitively lead the country - hence the reason they're always third. But I wouldn't say someone else who votes for them is a fool. If you hold certain values and a political party seems to follow those values too, then why wouldn't you vote for them?

I wish there was an alternative to nulab and the Conservatives, but there isn't. I am not voting nulab ever again, I don't see the point in voting LibDem - which leaves the Tories. But for me to vote for them puts me in a very deep quandry, as it goes against everything I've previously felt deeply about.

One of those occasions that makes you go "hmmm......"

[LA]

Trouble, Vote Conservatives in about 20 years

[JAMC]

Only fools vote Lib dems!

Calling me names makes me want to do it even more.

[JAMC]

I wouldn't vote LibDem, but only because I think they're too weak willed to be a party to definitively lead the country - hence the reason they're always third. But I wouldn't say someone else who votes for them is a fool. If you hold certain values and a political party seems to follow those values too, then why wouldn't you vote for them?

Well as I say it would be a block vote to try and prevent the Conservatives gaining the seat. I would also say that we shouldn't confuse "strong willed" with tubthumping.

I wish there was an alternative to nulab and the Conservatives, but there isn't. I am noting voting nulab ever again, I don't see the point in voting LibDem - which leaves the Tories. But for me to vote for them puts me in a very deep quandry, as it goes against everything I've previously felt deeply about.

One of those occasions that makes you go "hmmm......"

Alas, the quandry of a first-past-the-post system. Now if we had proportional representation.... uh oh, turning into a lib dem!!!

[KeiranMac]

A damn good idea there MN

I'd go further, I think they should make it compulsory to vote, but with the option of making a spoilt ballot if you choose to do so. Too many people are too bloody lazy to go to the polls.

[Midas]

I'd go further, I think they should make it compulsory to vote, but with the option of making a spoilt ballot if you choose to do so. Too many people are too bloody lazy to go to the polls.

Certainly laziness comes into it with a number of people, but I think the disenchantment with political parties generally is a very significant factor in the falling turnout.

Does anyone know whether any of the political parties have ever considered putting compulsory voting on the agenda?

[Tete123]

Certainly laziness comes into it with a number of people, but I think the disenchantment with political parties generally is a very significant factor in the falling turnout.

Does anyone know whether any of the political parties have ever considered putting compulsory voting on the agenda?

I don't think it has ever been a manifesto pledge, in fact I know the Conservatives are against moves to make voting compulsory. A report by The Institute of Public Policy Research proposed introducing compulsory voting a few years ago and was endorsed by Peter Hain and Geoff Hoon: BBC NEWS | Politics | Britain 'needs compulsory voting'.

New Labour had pledge to look at the voting system prior to their election victory in 1997, but once in power, it mysteriously dropped from the agenda, and that is the crutch of the problem; reforming the electoral system is always more appealing to opposition parties.

I am all for electoral reform, with compulsory voting (a RON or NOTA option being present) and a change to either a Google Page Ranking or STV system.

[Midas]

New Labour had pledge to look at the voting system prior to their election victory in 1997, but once in power, it mysteriously dropped from the agenda, and that is the crutch of the problem; reforming the electoral system is always more appealing to opposition parties.

This has always been one of the major factors behind my reasoning that the only way to achieve any substantial change to the electoral system, in particular the introduction of any variant of Google Page Ranking, is to have as many of the minor parties as possible combine forces into a coalition party to present a single and credible alternative to Labour and the Tories. This coalition party, who could perhaps gain a substantial overall parliamentary majority, would certainly benefit from the introduction of Google Page Ranking since all the component parties in that coalition would benefit equally.

I am all for electoral reform, with compulsory voting (a RON or NOTA option being present) and a change to either a Google Page Ranking or STV system.

Even without the introduction of Google Page Ranking, the NOTA option in particular (thinking that unless explained in detail, RON might mean little to the majority of people whereas NOTA is self-explanatory) would give a far truer representation of the opinion of the voting public. Personally I would prefer to see voting by way of a party list, preferably closed, since I believe that voting for a specific member can sway too many people's voting pattern. Far better, although still not perfect, simply to vote for a party and have the full choice available in every constituency.