Kite159
Veteran Member
The election will be won or lost on the minority of marginal seats. Safe seats are likely to be pushed to the background in the battle field.
The election will be won or lost on the minority of marginal seats. Safe seats are likely to be pushed to the background in the battle field.
They'll just point to the AV referendum (anyone remember that) from a few years ago as proving that there's no appetite amongst the electorate for reform.
They'll just point to the AV referendum (anyone remember that) from a few years ago as proving that there's no appetite amongst the electorate for reform.
Held the same day as the Scottish Elections which in turn led to a referendum.
Think I'm with Morrisey on this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0TZZZcC9l4
no real change from a bunch of self serving politicians one and all
I used to have something to vote for, then there was a time there was something to vote against - then Blair came along and it's all over now. The marginally frightening thing is the only 'change' factor appears to be in the guise of Farage.
I do get tired of those who say things like: "I didn't vote - they're all the same". So they avoided the walk to the polling station and then feel that they can whinge at whatever happens for the next term.
If the electorate at large feels that they don't want to vote for any on offer, they should just register their right to vote by spoiling their ballot papers. It's legal, is recorded and if the numbers reflected the supposed dissatifaction of voters, the elected government would eventually have to address the issue.
If the turnout is less than 70%, whatever farce follows will be partly down to those who just couldn't be bothered, whatever excuse they themselves use.
The principled vote for no-one is very important and one I've adopted a few times at local elections. IMO a box should be created at the bottom of the ballot paper marked 'none of the above' and these should all be counted and included in the official result - 'spoilt' ballot papers include people who vote for more than one candidate etc and with a proper system these can be eliminated. Who knows, one day the none of them party might win.:
I totally agree. Because they are not the same, and that is, for me, a major problem. Party A is sensible on policy area 1, but lunatic on policy area 2; Party B is the opposite. Do I vote for a party knowing that 50% of the time it will be disastrous? Or do I duck the issue, leave the decision up to others?I do get tired of those who say things like: "I didn't vote - they're all the same". ....
If the electorate at large feels that they don't want to vote for any on offer, they should just register their right to vote by spoiling their ballot papers. It's legal, is recorded and if the numbers reflected the supposed dissatifaction of voters, the elected government would eventually have to address the issue.
I would also like to know when, exactly, something contained in a manifesto became a "commitment", rather than an aspiration. No party, especially one that has been in opposition, can predict what conditions will be in place the day after an election, let alone four years down the line. Yet it is a routine jeer from the opposition benches that a government has failed to deliver its "promises" and cannot be trusted.
The principled vote for no-one is very important and one I've adopted a few times at local elections. IMO a box should be created at the bottom of the ballot paper marked 'none of the above' and these should all be counted and included in the official result - 'spoilt' ballot papers include people who vote for more than one candidate etc and with a proper system these can be eliminated. Who knows, one day the none of them party might win.:
Spoiling your ballot paper doesn't demonstrate anything to anyone.
We have a Government who decided they have a "mandate" based on 20% of voters voting for them (and then lecture the rest of us about democracy when we vote for strike action). We have low turnout in places like Sunderland dismissed as "apathy", as though the electorate are too stupid to engage. Spoiling ballot papers would be (and is) recorded as the electorate being too thick to vote properly, nothing else.
I work for a democractic organisation and we have "re-open nominations" on every single one of our ballots. It should be there on Governmental ballots too.
Because, usually, reality gets in the way. For instance, in 1997 ministers at Health were forever saying "I can do that because I am the Minister" only to be told it was actually beyond their legal authority - because there was virtually no one on Government who had been there before they genuinely did not know what the could or couldn't do. Likewise, in 2010, in breach of the usual election conventions (and possibly the law relating to officials and party matters), the Treasury had been instructed not to reveal the full picture of public finances to opposition parties. Hence the need for immediate re-jigging of election aspirations. And then there are events - if the Queen were to be assassinated the day after the election (which heaven forfend!), it is almost impossible that the new PM, Natalie Bennett, would get much of her first year programme up and running....
It depends on what you perceive a manifesto to be. Is it a bit of PR fluffery or is it more like a job application form?
When people go for a job they explain why they're good and what their aspirations are. If they get the job they are appraised based on what they said. If they fail to meet their aspirations they will, unless they give a good explanation for their failure, eventually be sacked. Why should politics be anything different?
I'm glad you are using entirely hypothetical examples here....That said, I have more issue with parties omitting major things (like, ooh, the privatisation of the NHS) from their manifesto yet claiming a "mandate" for their actions.
Likewise, in 2010, in breach of the usual election conventions (and possibly the law relating to officials and party matters), the Treasury had been instructed not to reveal the full picture of public finances to opposition parties.
I do get tired of those who say things like: "I didn't vote - they're all the same". .
I have a choice of three parties I can't stand - what do you want me to do ? force me to vote for the least odious of them ?
There has been talk about a 'reject these candidates' option here in Australia from time to time, since one of the main issues with our electoral system is the major parties selecting uninspiring candidates.The principled vote for no-one is very important and one I've adopted a few times at local elections. IMO a box should be created at the bottom of the ballot paper marked 'none of the above' and these should all be counted and included in the official result - 'spoilt' ballot papers include people who vote for more than one candidate etc and with a proper system these can be eliminated. Who knows, one day the none of them party might win.:
AV would not actually be of much help to the Greens, UKIP or other minor parties with converting a low national vote into winning seats. For that you would need a proportional representation system, not just an improved method of electing a single member for each constituency.I imagine support will rise in the wake of numerous parties gaining headway in votes but not seats. UKIP (as much as I dislike them) will also likely have far fewer seats than they deserve. That being said, I can't imagine AV doing them much good as a majority of people from the other parites would place them dead last - that's only speculation though
For about the first time in my life I have agreed with something a Tory prime minister has said, following the disgrageful decision by OFCOM not to treat the Green Party as a major political party in terms of news coverage in the run up to the election, yet treating that nasty shower run by Farage and his apologists as a major party.
I wouldn't listen to your "experts" if they are telling you that. Ther Greens have not significantly altered teh labour vote yet, and they probably never will - the LibDems are more vulnerable. It is UKIP that is far more attractive to the traditional Labour voter, with its emphasis on British jobs for British workers...........
1) the opinion of experts is that the Green Party represents more of a threat to Labour by splitting its traditional vote, than anybody else, therefore he would like the Greens to get whatever electoral boost they can.
Only if they have nothing to defend, like Gordon Brown. There have been some solid achievements in the last five years, and with Labour still in complete denial over the economy a debate might prove quite interesting...........2) if the above fails then he will not take part, which suits him even better as incumbents are much more at risk than challengers in an open debate.....
"Only every 5 years election rule" may need to be changed to allow another election by mid-2016.