Who Are You Going To Vote?

Well, who is everyone planning to vote for, if at all?

 

You really need an option for 'whoever has the best chance of defeating xxx'. Tactical voting's all the rage, baby! I'll be voting lib dem, but it in no way reflects my real preference.

 

well I never got the chance to register this time round.. so no one for me

 

ditto what dok said

N
x

 

I agree, but I'd guess most votes on here for Lib Dem or Labour would be tactical. I'd do the same if it was the only choice, but I'd be left feeling very bitter about it....

 

Mr Blair and his cabinet for me... and its not tactical apart from stoping any other party getting in ..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1466078,00.html

its intresting reading people attitudes toward this coming election.

 

Nice to hear people voting. I have been voting for everybody because none of them say what I want to hear. Protest votes are counted.

 

I've just on the verge of applying for voter's registration. Unforunately I will miss out on the coming general election but will be taking part in elections after that. Mym original stance was that I would not vote until there is a party which really reflects my political ideas. Recently however, I've had a bit of a re-think.


Doctoratomik once said that by not voting, one is making it easier for parties I really dislike (i.e. the tories, BNP, etc) to get in parliament, and there is some sense in that. Furthermore, I've had a closer look at many of the policies of these parties and it seems that the Lib Dems do reflect most of my ideals, so I may vote for them next time round.

I guess you can never be totally sure how the changes a certain party intends/intended to make will pan out. You could also say that there will always be a at least one or two policies you don't like. After all, politics, and individuals preferences are extremely varied. I now think you can however get a good enough pciture of what that party intends to do and to promote, enough to justify voting for them. Prior to the last 2 months I didn't hold this opinion but, times change.

So yeah to sum it up I've decided to take a little bit more of an active role in how the UK is run.

 

I don't know why it is, but I always feel like puking when I heard the word Lib Dem....

 

There are some great Lib Dem MPs. Menzies Campbell has been one of the clearest and most forthright voices speaking out against the Iraq war. Their proposed income-related council tax and 50 pence tax band are also quite boldly redistributive policies: Labour would never dare to lean so far towards socialism.

 

I agree, there are some very good Lib Dem MPs, there are also some awful ones. The party flip flopped over the war, and their policies on workers rights and privatising the Royal Mint are appallingly un-socialist. Added to that, they have the biggest pro-Israel faction of all the major parties, and sacked Jenny Tong over her pro-Palestinian statement. Read these articles by Andy Newman for a few more arguments against the Lib Dems, it's a hot topic for him.

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/electiion2005/nolibdem.htm

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/electiion2005/polltax.htm

I would vote Lib Dem to get rid of a Tory, or if the MP had a good voting record in parliament, or if the sitting Labour MP was terribly right wing. But I think if people are going to vote Lib Dem, they shouldn't do so under the illusion that they're a left-wing party, or are rooted in socialism....

 

No they didn't.

Of course they are not rooted in Marxist socialism but they are a great deal closer to it than New Labour. Personally I would never vote for a party which was rooted in such an outmoded political dogma. The only relevant and interesting point raised in your objections is the party's leaning towards laissez-faire economics, which I suppose is the Libertarian element of the party showing through. Still, if I were forced make a positive vote rather than a protest vote, I would seriously consider Lib Dem.

Otherwise those articles are just a lot of meaningless half arsed socialist mud-throwing - can you show me some evidence the party is "pro-Israel" in the sense of "anti-Palestine"?

 

That suggests an outmoded attachment to a particular political ideology, IMHO. How can something be 'appallingly un-socialist'? It's either appalling or it isn't. If it's appalling purely because it's un-socialist, then that suggests an adherence to dogma.

 

I will be continuing to refuse to participate in this farce that is supposed to pass as democracy in this country...


I'll be out getting pissed instead...

Fly...

 

I would say they did flip flop over the war, they hardly took a principled anti war stance. They said they would not back the war unless it had UN backing. The war didn't have UN backing, but when it broke out they ceased their criticism, and Charles Kennedy came out in support of it. Afterwards they have tried to paint themselves as anti war, and I agree, a vote for the Lib Dems may be seen as anti-war, but I don't agree that they have taken the firm approach the the Greens, for example, did. The continue to support the occupation, and have voted to send more troops to Iraq. Look at Lib Dem MPs voting records. That to me is flip-flopping.

Those articles aren't half-arsed socialist mud slinging, I happen to know the man who wrote them, he's very much got his head screwed on. He obviously has anti-Lib Dem stance, but points on their policies are correct, you can take them in any way you choose.

The Lib Dems have a large group within them called the 'Liberal Democrat Friends of Isreal'. One of their members, a Lib Dem candidate, came to debate at the Cambridge Union, arguing the case that the Palestinians are the greatest stumbling block to peace in the Middle East. Also Jenny Tong, who was a front bench Lib Dem MP who I had a great deal of respect for, was sacked by Charles Kennedy when she made the point that she can understand why Palestinians are driven to suicide bombing when they have everything taken away from them. She also explicitly condemned suicide bombing, but was still sacked. The whole reshuffle of their front bench has been to the right, so that they can target Tory seats.

I didn't bring the word 'socialist' into the equation here. Linguistics aside, it is a value judgement, but then most things are. You might disagree with out moded dogmas, and I'd agree, I'm hardly a card carrying trade unionist. My socialism is to look to a broader movement, but I've talked about that before. But that's not the point I'm making, you argued that they're approaching socialism, I wouldn't agree.

 

I think this is an inaccurate analysis. The Lib Dems have consistently spoken out against the principle of going to war. Once troops were committed Kennedy refrained from criticising the British forces themselves while still consistently challenging their political leaders throughout the invasion and occupation, throughout the Hutton and Butler inquiries, consistently objecting to the principle of the war. It's excessively naive to regard this as (in the hateful jargon) "flip flopping".

The Lib Dems support a Palestinian state, oppose the security fence, support the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories.

The Jenny Tong issue was I fear a sop to appearances and looking electable. Tong made a statement which could easily be misinterpreted and as a result of this carelessness she was sacked for the sake of appearance. This kind of image conscious electioneering is hardly the worst accusation you can level at a mainstream British political party.

 

'Excessively naive' is poor jargon in itself. If you want to debate a point, there's no need to descend into abuse. I happen to disagree with you, I think their stance on the war was far less principled than many in the movement. Kennedy did not criticise the war while it was going on, he made a statement on TV, alongside Blair and Iain Duncan-Smith, saying that the time for debate is over, and whatever our opinions we must now support the troops and criticise later. I would hardly accuse the Lib Dems of being war mongers, that may well be 'excessively naive'. But I would say that what Kennedy did was to court popularity over the issue. The majority of the population had opposed the war, but swung behind it when it began. Kennedy, as a career politician, did the same. I think that was a very cynical manouver. It is partially to his credit that he reassumed an oppositional stance afterwards, like most people in the country did. You could argue that one shouldn't really expect much more from politicians seeking to gain favour with the electorate, but it wouldn't win my vote....

 

I'm inclined to agree. You and Mr Met hold different opinions, neither of which I think could be fairly described as 'excessively naive'. Or indeed even plain old 'naive'. Play nice, boys.

 

I still think this is still poor analysis. This is from Kennedy's statement on 21st March 2003:

I don't think we can realistically expect anything else from an anti-war party working within the democratic system, can we? Are you seriously suggesting he should go on record condemning British troops as war criminals while they are engaged in a war? There is a difference between criticising troops in action and criticising the political process which led to their deployment.

I think his record of continually challenging the Labour administration in the commons over the principle of the war - before, during and after invasion - marks the Lib Dems as one of the most consistent voices against the Iraq war.

 

I think the poll is a little biased, but all I have to say is my cousins in N. Ireland, vote Sinn Fein.