Who will you vote for?

[jamesontheroad]

A simple question, posted during the first week of the four week election campaign. Right now, based on your previous political leanings and the initial stages of the campaign, how do you think you will be voting in the general election?

 

[90019]

One thing that's come up a bit recently is the idea of lots of people spoiling their ballots, thinking that it will make a difference.
What they don't understand is that spoiled ballots aren't looked at one by one. They get counted, but beyond that, are completely ignored.

If you plan to spoil your ballot, you might as well save a journey and not go to vote at all.


Personally, I'm undecided, although I doubt I'll be going for any of the 3 main parties. (If I had to choose one of them it'd be the Lib Dems, but even then, I'd rather not.)

 

[jon0844]

You're right that they're not looked at one by one, and nothing from any ballot will be read out or monitored (besides those counting, as I have done when working on a count), but there is a difference between a spoiled paper and no vote; one can be seen as a protest, while the other implies the public just don't care.

It's a shame there's no 'none of the above' box, which could force a re-ballot (and new candidates) if that got more votes than any one candidate. Will never happen though, obviously.

 

[90019]

, but there is a difference between a spoiled paper and no vote; one can be seen as a protest, while the other implies the public just don't care.

Yes, I understand that, but it's the people who try and get everyone to write the same thing on their ballot, thinking that it will make any difference at all, what I was meaning with the comparison is that the difference between doing that and not voting is essentially nothing. It's not something that's going to affect the final outcome.
(Obviously, unless you get every person in the whole country to do it, although, that's somewhat unlikely )

 

[jon0844]

Okay, I understand.

When I worked on a count before, it was amazing to see what people would write. Some were very racist. Others had silly messages. Some had names of people who weren't standing, but most were clearly from people who simply could not understand how to vote. It's a real eye opener about society in general.

In the event of there being no outright winner, each party could sit in and argue over who a vote was for. It's silly; you might have an X in a box, but if even a teeny-weeny part goes out and touches another box, that candidate could argue it was a vote for them!

In our case, one person was so far ahead that he, somewhat sarcastically, said 'oh you can have that one if you want' to the other candidate when they came over to watch us doing the count, as they're entitled to do! Ouch!

 

[Bill EWS]

Don't ask anyone who they will vote for. It's no-one's business. You will in all probability, just get their own politically biased reply. You should read, listen and view all the available media, and make your mind up by your own experiences and ability.

Voting what someone esle tells you is called brainwashing and exploiting your natural inexperiences. Think for yourself. Even if you make a mistake and vote a disasterous party into government at least it was your own error of judgement. That's called 'experience'. You live to do better another day based on what you have learned at first hand. Not someone elses wishes.

 

[Metroland]

Never sure why people spoil their ballot papers, some people in the world die to get a vote, and women only got it in any country worldwide in 1893 (in New Zealand). Women only got the vote here in 1918 (if they were over 30) and wasn't until 1928 that women had equal rights to men - in living memory.

All this was after years of struggle, like most rights, including hunger strikes, protest, and Emily Davidson chucking herself in front of the King's horse in 1911.

There are 100s of political parties and movements and subsets of the main parties, to cater for all tastes.

 

[Nick W]

There are 100s of political parties and movements and subsets of the main parties, to cater for all tastes.

But there aren't - poorer people would want a much more socialist regime than even the lib dems or the greens could provide. The extremely rich and selfish people would want to go back to back to the "laissez-faire" ways of Victorian Britain. Some centre-right people may not feel that the Tories are credible enough and so spoil their paper. Others with extreme nationalistic views without a BNP candidate in their area would want to spoil their paper.

In my opinion though - anyone who is a socialist should support which ever party has the best prospect of heading towards left away from the centre if enough people who would benefit from them weren't apathetic, be it the greens or the lib dems.

 

[Oswyntail]

.....
In the event of there being no outright winner, each party could sit in and argue over who a vote was for. It's silly; you might have an X in a box, but if even a teeny-weeny part goes out and touches another box, that candidate could argue it was a vote for them!......

Remember the "hanging chads"?
I agree with Bill EWS, that no one should ever reveal in public where their vote goes, especially to the party representatives outside the polling station. I have been called very rude names by these hacks in my time!
Sadly, perhaps, the "none of the above" idea would not work, and could lead to worse trouble. In the first place, you need candidates to stand, and that tends to filter out most of the population - it tends to be only those who are already interested enough to be affiliated to a party who are willing to be put forward. Secondly, it could be held to ransom by the inevitable "naughty tendency" who could take great delight in preventing completed elections by whipping up spoiling voters! And someone has to run the country in the meantime - I could see an system where the "government" is formed on the basis of completed constituencies, potentially leaving swathes of the country unrepresented.
I would also like to point out the very unfashionable view that the vast majority of MPs (and civil servants) are honest, upright, and doing this not from hope of personal or huge reward but because they believe in our system of democracy. I think it is truly amazing that we get enough candidates at any election.

 

[Metroland]

But there aren't - poorer people would want a much more socialist regime than even the lib dems or the greens could provide. The extremely rich and selfish people would want to go back to back to the "laissez-faire" ways of Victorian Britain. Some centre-right people may not feel that the Tories are credible enough and so spoil their paper. Others with extreme nationalistic views without a BNP candidate in their area would want to spoil their paper.

In my opinion though - anyone who is a socialist should support which ever party has the best prospect of heading towards left away from the centre if enough people who would benefit from them weren't apathetic, be it the greens or the lib dems.

174 parties have their name registered in England only, 367 in the UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom

Sure, not all of them stand in each area, but there is usually a lot of choice.

I think its a gross generalisation that poor people vote socialist and rich people vote right wing. Yes, there is some correlation, but not everyone votes for themselves. I certainly don't, choosing which party represents the overall *vision* I'd like to see at the current time, and a lot depends on what you believe: For example, do you believe the state is better is organising things or the individual, or a mixture of both. Are you a traditionalist or a reformer, or even a mixture? Do you believe in top down management, or people organising themselves and social/personal responsibility?

There is such a thing as liberal left (like the libdems to an extent) or authoritarian left (like the Labour party to an extent).

There are very right wing Tories like John Redwood, and left wing ones like Philip Blond. There are very left wing people in the Labour party, like John Prescott and right wing ones like Tony Blair.

Of course some people never ask themselves these questions, vote for themselves, some even do life style votes where they vote on perceptions of image.

There's also nothing wrong with the centre (all the main parties are centralist), it doesn't mean you can't make up your mind. To some people the state is better at running some things (like health, education, some transport), but they would be appalled by the idea of state run restaurants, hair dressers and toy and humbug manufacturers.

There are many ways of organising business as well.

The best thing is to read and find as much as possible on everything you can, and then read and find out about what the political parties stand for and go from there based on how you want to vote.

 

[Mojo]

What annoys me is people that say that they don't know what each party stands for; have they not watched the news, read any flyers dropping through their letterbox (I've been out meeting local residents and leafleting homes this afternoon with the prospective MP) or been on the internet? You don't even have to go on the parties' websites; people like the BBC have summarised how the important parties stand on the main issues.

 

[mrcheek]

What annoys me is people that say that they don't know what each party stands for; have they not watched the news, read any flyers dropping through their letterbox (I've been out meeting local residents and leafleting homes this afternoon with the prospective MP) or been on the internet? You don't even have to go on the parties' websites; people like the BBC have summarised how the important parties stand on the main issues.

I second this. Anyone saying they dont know what each party stands for is being wilfully ignorant, and frankly its probably just as well if they dont vote.

BTW, is there any way we can change the colours on this poll? They are disturbingly wrong!

 

[Metroland]

I was so tempted to point that out earlier and resisted lol

 

[j0hn0]

I second this. Anyone saying they dont know what each party stands for is being wilfully ignorant, and frankly its probably just as well if they dont vote.

I think with those statements though, there is a certain amount of apathy to be taken on board.

No party really stands for everything you believe in or think is important, which is what I think the point is.

2 elections ago I voted BNP because they were the only ones to do any work cavassing in my local area. Next election and surprise surprise, they were all out campaigning so i didn't vote for any of them because none of them say what I want them to

This time though, I live in Germany and so won't be voting, but if I was to be voting, it would be Labour. Why? simple.....

Andrew Adonis - here is the first politician I have seen for many many years who actually gets the job done, wants to do the job and does the job well.

We quite simply need him to stay in power in order to mend our railways. I can't stand Gordon Brown, but he has more experience and conviction than any other candidates.

Some policies from all parties are very interesting to me, but for some reason they don't all come together as 1, or even close to being 1 party.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I'm also in germany, however I am registered to vote in the UK and will be voting by post.

 

[j0hn0]

I'm also in germany, however I am registered to vote in the UK and will be voting by post.

interesting, aboutmyvote.com?

How do you qualify?

 

[gordonthemoron]

interesting, aboutmyvote.com?

How do you qualify?

I am registered as an overseas voter. You have to apply to the council where you used to live in the UK, there will be a form on their website that you fill in and send off. You need a witness who is a) a British Citizen & b) is not resident in the UK. You also have to apply for a postal vote. I doubt that there is enough time for you to do it now.

 

[Oswyntail]

What annoys me is people that say that they don't know what each party stands for; have they not watched the news, read any flyers dropping through their letterbox (I've been out meeting local residents and leafleting homes this afternoon with the prospective MP) or been on the internet? You don't even have to go on the parties' websites; people like the BBC have summarised how the important parties stand on the main issues.

I agree wholeheartedly. But there is an awful lot of disinformation around these days, particularly from the Government. When an opposition party puts forward a policy, it is instantly rubbished, often by using unjust stereotypes "Tories for the rich", "LibDems are undecided", and claiming the finances do not add up using (undisclosed) Treasury figures. So, if you believe this, the message is confusing. Just read what each party says about itself and its policies, and ignore what it's opponents say about it.

 

[j0hn0]

I am registered as an overseas voter. You have to apply to the council where you used to live in the UK, there will be a form on their website that you fill in and send off. You need a witness who is a) a British Citizen & b) is not resident in the UK. You also have to apply for a postal vote. I doubt that there is enough time for you to do it now.

or enough inclination

Thanks for that though, something to consider for the future but will be moving back fairly soon anyway

 

[yorksrob]

Was in Hull today waiting for a bus to Paragon station.The first one came in about 10 minutes, however, I was informed that it was run by the wrong company so couldn't get on. A further 50 minutes and two buses ensued, neither of which I was allowed on as they belonged to the wrong company.

A timely reminder NOT to vote Labour or Tory this time I think.

 

[Aictos]

Well it seems that during the 1997 campaign, activists who called for voters to vote Lib Dem to get the Tories out of power were expelled for breaking Labour party rules.

Roll on 2010 and senior Labour figures are encouraging exactly this, which by the way if the rules weren't changed (of course somehow they have) then figures like Gordon Brown, Lord Adonis and Lord Mandelson would have been expelled from the Labour Party for encouraging this and Brown probably would have been the only UK non elected Prime Minister and also the only UK Prime Minister to be expelled from his party after the election of course.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/.../13/brown-vote-lib-dem-where-labour-cant-win/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Which brings me to the view that Labour has signalled it's strongest view that a 4th term is unlikely and to have success in remaining in power need to have the liberal Democrats but by referring to the Liberal Democrats as a minority party that just ain't going to go down too well with Clegg and co so they may look towards a Cameron/Clegg partnership instead.

 

[thefab444]

The trouble for Clegg is that whichever one he sides with, it will cause a rift in the party. The Social Liberals won't look too fondly on a coalition with Cameron, and the Market Liberals probably aren't in favour of a coalition with Brown.

That said, given Brown's constant ridicule of the Lib Dems, I suspect a Tory/Lib coalition is more likely, probably on the basis of electoral reform and changes to the House of Lords.

 

[Ivo]

This is a bit outdated now, but in March last year Clegg came up with a rather unusual method of winning votes:

"Labour is finished! The election is between the Conservatives - and the Liberal Democrats."

On that basis Clegg himself would probably prefer a coalition with Cameron. I personally would vote for Cameron, but have no interest in voting at present.

 

[Mojo]

It's always interesting though how things work in their local areas. In my area it's between the Conservatives and Lib Dems. Labour's candidate is from London which hasn't gone down too well and I have never seen him in the area, most people don't even know who he is, but can recognise the other two who both live and are from the area.

There do not seem to be any Labour volunteers in the area delivering leaflets; the only thing we've had from them is the free election address which everyone sends out and I'd say only around 5% of the houses that have posters up are for Labour. Interestingly enough, the seat is currently held by Labour with a majority of 8,962.

 

[Oswyntail]

... but have no interest in voting at present.

At the risk of unleashing a torrent of, well, anything, can I ask why? Have you ever been interested and this time is different? Or is it just uninteresting? I must say that I feel that a general apathy towards elections has been one of the more pernicious results of the Blair strategy - say nothing, commit to nothing, do nothing (IMHO) - which left vast swathes of the populace thinking that voting cannot affect the outcome or the actions, whatever party won.

 

[Ivo]

Your comment about Blair's strategy is fair, and to be honest not that far off. The problem is that New Labour and the Conservatives aren't as different as they were before the "New" appeared. If this had been 30-odd years ago, and it was a matter of Maggie or not Maggie, I would have happily voted for her, because her schemes were (mostly) akin to my own ideals. It is fair to say that I have always been a blue (I remember hearing that Blair had won in '97 and thinking "John Major should have won"... I was 8 at the time), but some of their policies - especially transport ones - discourage me a little. I would rather vote for the same Party at local and national level - but I am registered for Southend, not Bath, and Anna Waite [the Council Leader and former Transport Officer] has destroyed any interest I had in voting for the Conservatives at local level. So in essence, my vote wouldn't be worthwhile because I don't mind who wins - provided it isn't Labour or the BNP!

If Cameron wants my vote, he has four requirements to fulfill:

- Revise national railway policies to be somewhat closer to the (admittedly over-the-top) Lib Dem policies
- Close down proposals for the South Essex Rapid Transit scheme (it won't make any difference; London Road trams are what Southend needs)
- Ensure Boris's idea of a Thames Estuary island airport never sees the light of day
- Kick out Ms Waite!

 

[Aictos]

I disagree about the Thames airport, I think it's a great idea and will regenerate the area.

 

[j0hn0]

At the risk of unleashing a torrent of, well, anything, can I ask why? Have you ever been interested and this time is different? Or is it just uninteresting? I must say that I feel that a general apathy towards elections has been one of the more pernicious results of the Blair strategy - say nothing, commit to nothing, do nothing (IMHO) - which left vast swathes of the populace thinking that voting cannot affect the outcome or the actions, whatever party won.

well, isn't that true though?

To paraphrase south park "we always have the choice of a douche and a turd, why should now be any different"

IF, and its a big IF, other parties actually had a chance of winning the election then perhaps people would feel more inclined to vote. In Germany, where I live, it is even worse.

If any party comes close to challenging the party in power, they just form a coalition with them. The ruling party in germany now consists of 3 parties, all which have been annexed by the CDU whenever they gave a decent challenge to their leadership.

Unless you are happy with your leadership, you are screwed, in any country really. Banks have more power than politicians so any vote for a politician is a wasted one anyway.

 

[jon0844]

My prospective Labour MP sent me an email (via a forum - I'm not a party supporter) asking for a donation. And I thought they tried to bribe people for votes. No, I've got to PAY mine!

 

[j0hn0]

My prospective Labour MP sent me an email (via a forum - I'm not a party supporter) asking for a donation. And I thought they tried to bribe people for votes. No, I've got to PAY mine!

I would certainly consider "cash for votes"