UK Election: 6 May 2010
The phony war is over, the UK election has finally been called, this Rotten Parliament is over and we will have a new one elected on 6 May.
After 13 years of Labour, we have 30 days left until I will vote for the Conservatives and truly hope we win. The idea of 5 more years of Brown is truly horrific.
Couldn't agree more.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well we'll likely never know, as we've only had 3 years of Brown's leadership, not 5
~
Really don't know who I will vote for.
Usually default to Lib Dems, my usual local borough (Kingston upon Thames) being a Lib Dem stronghold and I've always liked the way the council has been run by our MP.
However since I've now moved north slightly, my local borough is now Merton, which has a split council with no overall leader (Con: 29 Lab: 27).
I'll probably not bother.
This ridiculously short period between announcement and the actual elections is really an expression of arrogance of power. It's sort of a message to the rest of the political spectre that they don't really count next to the established parties. The American system takes it to the other extreme with its permanent campaigns, but this is pretty undemocratic as far as I am concerned.
Congratulations America
I don't know much about U.K politics,(other then the fact that nobody really likes Brown) But I wish you well, hope you get someone better this time.
I enjoy blank walls.
And who might this 'better' person be? I am no fan of Brown, but the alternative doesn't seem better to me at all.
Congratulations America
Quite.
I'll have a look at the relative strengths of the parties in my consistency, and then decide who do vote for. I too want Labour gone, but I'm not sure I can bring myself to actually vote Tory. It'll probably be Lib Dem again, unless they're very far behind in this constituency and the labour/con race is close enough, in which case I might think about a Tory vote.
Cameron is deeply unconvincing too me, but he's probably better than Brown.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
People having to chose between two parties they don't want, because a vote on the party they actually want, just like about 20% of the rest of the electorate, is a lost vote. It boggles the mind.
Congratulations America
To be clear, I don't especially want the Lib-Dems, either. I'd rather elect some hypothetical third party who lack idealogical baggage and well act pragmatically to further the interests of the country, and the people who live in it. As it is, the conservatives are too right wing, Lib-Dems are too left wing and Labour are too useless.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Seriously, every time Cameron says fucking "change" I want to punch him in the face. You could at least be less blatant about your plagiarism, and you could also try and understand the context that made it effective when Obama used it: i.e. it was basically code for "I'm not George Bush or, indeed, any kind of Republican" which is a powerful message indeed.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
The idea that "Change" is Copyright 2008 Obama is nonsense though Steely. "Time for a change" or "Better the Devil you know" have been the two prime arguments for elections for all my life and I'm sure much longer. Any opposition uses change, Obama was the then-latest in a massively long-line of people who did. Quite frankly "I'm not Gordon Brown or, indeed, any kind of Labour politician" is a powerful message too.
Hazir, this campaign has been going for years, its not just today that the campaign is starting.
Tim: Do you know what constituency you are in?
Sadly for myself, I live in a "Safe Labour" seat
It's not so much the message by the recycling and constant repetition of the word that annoys me - it's as if they believe that if they say it enough people will think they're just like Obama. Honest to fuck, I can hear the capital letters when Cameron to Clegg says. I do believe I've even heard Brown somehow use the word despite being the incumbent leader.
p.s. if Cameron thinks the difference between himself and Brown is as stark as the difference between Obama and Bush then he's delusional. And if you think that as well, then so are you.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Yeah, Bush didn't f**k up the economy as much as Brown has.
Nor was Bush in charge for 13 years - thankfully!
The SW London Borough of Merton where I live has a split council because it encompasses two constituencies; the eastern and southeastern wards in the Mitcham and Morden constituency held by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh, and northern and western wards in the Wimbledon constituency held by Conservative MP Stephen Hammond.
And you know, I really don't know into which of those two constituencies I fall. I live sort of between Morden and Wimbledon.
S'pose I should find out.
I don't think our American friends agree with you thereFucking up the economy I mean.
Congratulations America
Bush also campaigned on "change", he just didn't make it into a buzzword. His buzzwords were "dignity" (IE I won't get a blowjob in the Oval Office) and "compassionate conservativism" (I won't be a stiff, out-of-touch dude).
Though I do have to agree with Hazir -- unless the point of the system is to have a permanent campaign when a certain coalition is in power, this does seem like a bit of a short campaign.
It would be much better to have the US system where it drags on for the best part of the year so by the time it becomes time to vote you've become so sick of the candidates that you genuinely want them all to die.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Ive been trying to follow this election with some form of enthusiasm for a bit but every time i try to get interested in a part of it - a leader, a speech, a manifesto - i get hit by how corrupt or meaningless everything said actually is.
Either its just meaningless tat like "change change change" (which, by the way steely, Cameron reckons he started saying before Obama. Weird) or blue-sky promises which have often been broken before (labours "clean politics" or not having tuition fees, all that) or rabid, almost sensless attacks on the other parties, with the Lib Dems playing their classic role of "look at those horrible two. Elect us instead and we will piss rainbow juice into the mouths of the hungry and poor".
How you can be a full supporter of just one party is beyond me. It seems an election is basically a time where each party promises everything to anyone to get elected and then immediately goes back to supporting its own interests - class rule, unions, etc (i realise most of the elections in my lifetime have just been labour following labour but the Tories have never missed an opportunity to involve themselves in a scandal have they?)
So - who to vote for? Doesnt really matter since my district is solid tory and my vote thus becomes pretty meaningless.
On the topic of Cameron though, I think its a real shame. If he actually was Dave Cameron the general nice guy Tory who rides to work as a bit of a gimmick, i could actually like him. But its knowing that hes a posh public school toff with a Baronet for a wife and its just his job a a PR man thats created the character "Dave".
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
Why is the fact that Cameron worked in PR the worst thing in the world to folks? It's interesting how often I've seen that lobbed at him. Brown worked as a TV journalist for Scottish TV.
Brown held an actual job at one time? How surprising.
Congratulations America
PR people have a reputation for being ruthless manipulative liars. When one tells you that he wants to be honest and upfront, you have to wonder what angle he is playing. When you start to like one, you start to wonder if its just because his image is really him or just a front to make you vote for him.
Of course, none of the above is fair. But its what happens.
Also more cynical people might point out that being a ruthless manipulative liar for money is a pretty good start for a politician.
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
And hundreds of years later, that still works. Proof that the average human is stupider than the average pigeon.
I like to consider myself rather cynical, and I was going to point out that at least we know Cameron's good at a politician's job - unlike his opponents, he's good enough at manipulative lying to work in the private sector. His opponents are (ostensibly) only good enough to get government work in that field.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Hm. I always thought you spelt pigeon with a d. Pidgeon.
HehI like to consider myself rather cynical, and I was going to point out that at least we know Cameron's good at a politician's job - unlike his opponents, he's good enough at manipulative lying to work in the private sector. His opponents are (ostensibly) only good enough to get government work in that field.
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
Why is it weird that Cameron might have started saying it before Obama? Obama was elected in 2008 in a campaign mostly over 2007/8 (yes he was active but frankly minor before then). Cameron was elected Conservative Leader in 2005 (3 years before Obama's nomination) on a campaign platform of change and modernisation. Cameron has been campaigning for the last 5 years, not 5 weeks, on this platform - and I could name many major change policies, it is not just the rhetoric. Certainly not "meaningless tat".
Because the parties do still have different principles and ways of viewing the world. Different philosophies that cause different actions.How you can be a full supporter of just one party is beyond me. It seems an election is basically a time where each party promises everything to anyone to get elected and then immediately goes back to supporting its own interests - class rule, unions, etc (i realise most of the elections in my lifetime have just been labour following labour but the Tories have never missed an opportunity to involve themselves in a scandal have they?)
Labour has the socialist belief of big government needing to do everything for the little person.
Conservatives have a belief in individuals being able to do the right thing for themselves better than the government can.
It may not be 1983 but for the first election in my adult lifetime, the major and serious policy divides (as well as philosophy divides) are there. Just not as obvious in the 30 second soundbite on TV. There are some major policy differences across the parties this election.
It always matters, and shock results can happen in any seat. EG Portillo in '97 should not have happened, you'd have thought before hand. His was about as solidly Tory as it could come and still fell.So - who to vote for? Doesnt really matter since my district is solid tory and my vote thus becomes pretty meaningless.
How do you know that? Because that's what he's attacked as?On the topic of Cameron though, I think its a real shame. If he actually was Dave Cameron the general nice guy Tory who rides to work as a bit of a gimmick, i could actually like him. But its knowing that hes a posh public school toff with a Baronet for a wife and its just his job a a PR man thats created the character "Dave".
Why can it not be that he is both someone with a priviledged background and a genuinely general nice guy?
There's a 2004 episode of South Park where one of the characters tells everyone to "hope for change".
Hope is the denial of reality
Is that really the case, or is it just that PR people are just more comfortable pushing all their principles out there and being very vocal about things? After all, their job is generally to overcommunicate.
Occams razor, I find it hard to believe any individual could create and live an entire personality and persona that is so fake for so long.
If Cameron's not genuinely a nice guy, why is the only reason we have to believe he's not is what school he went to? So he went to a fancy school, so what? Where's the reports of him being an arsehole who screams in womens faces, punches his staff, throws Nokia's against the wall, pushes people off chairs etc, etc . . . no wait, that's the current PM who does all that sorry. If Cameron was even a fraction of the arsehole that Brown is, we'd here about that too.
Yeh but who cares about all that crap.
Can Cameron run the country. That is what people are having serious doubts and concerns about.
I am staggered by the incisive objectivity of your analysis and am interested in subscribing to your news letter.Labour has the socialist belief of big government needing to do everything for the little person.
Conservatives have a belief in individuals being able to do the right thing for themselves better than the government can.
Fuck David Cameron. He's Tony Blair without the delivery, eloquence or basic personal charm.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote