PDA

View Full Version : An appeal to the politically disillusioned


Wedge
4th May 2005, 17:38
Apologies for starting another election thread......

But, please get out tomorrow and exercise your democratic right to vote.

This is not a partisan thread, just an appeal to everyone is thinking of not voting, to do so. Even if you go to the polling station and spoil your paper, you will be registering your disillusionment with politics in a much more active way than by staying at home.

In many countries in the world people don't have the right to vote, and would love to be able to.

Please exercise your democratic right on May 5th, whoever you vote for.

:)

Paterbrat
4th May 2005, 18:05
Wedge I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on this point.
I will embarass myself against your succinct post however.

Why vote and why it shouldn't, nor ever be, a foregone conclusion.

Most come to this thread because it is of interest and a place where we can express our feelings on the political situation today.
Deeply grateful to be a citzen of a country where we follow a democaratic process and exercise our right in who governs the country and tending not to the specifics and statistice, more to the general because so often I feel the figures percentages and statistics bandied to and fro are very often correct only when viewed from fairly narrow perspectives sometimes from only certain viewpoints. While realising it is impossible to please everyone nor should one sensibly expect it to either be realisticaly attempted or that Utopian ideal be achived, just yet, it is hastily added.
While possible to get quite passionate about ones beliefs while hoping to retain the knowledge that as passion rises sweet reason departs, and each of us has our own views and party to support. It has become a personal viewpoint that the increasing insistance of the present administration that there is only one party agenda capable of running this country, seems to fail to acknowledge just how poor some of its running has been to date. How far short of some of it's promises made to the electorate before being voted it has fallen. How badly it has mislead the entire country in some important issues, and just how many traditional values freedoms and much self governance has been surruptitiously diluted, watered down, altered, removed or simply given away.
Every and any administration falls short of perfection, contains bad apples, and no-one or party has the answer to every problem. We have however a system which allows chances to be given for others to step forward and have a try. What has been disturbing are possible attempts to ensure that the system we do have is eroded and altered in a manner that ensures the one in power remains in power and there is no alternative.
When one begins to see voting fraud and holes developing with little done to rectify it, when we see gates wide to allow in voters who will be predisposed to those holding the doors wide, see national rights and freedoms handed away, traditional checks and ballances in our parliamentry system between Commons and Lords distorted abolished or ignored, the legistlature judiciary press and TV packed with sympathisers to tilt the ballance then perhaps its time to worry
This country's history is a long one over centuries to the mulinational modern nation that has been a leading world power had much to give and given much. It is painful to watch any erosion or retreat from that hardwon progress. No opportunity should be missed to retain the possibility that other routes to common objectives should be allowed to be entertained and tried rather than dismissed out of hand and never considered.

acbus1
4th May 2005, 18:12
Paterbrat.......hope you don't mind me saying.......your posts make my eyes hurt. :ooh: :suspect: :uhoh: :ugh:

SilsoeSid
4th May 2005, 19:38
I think it will be great voting tomorrow.

I can vote for one party, which will in fact be a vote for a second, which ultimately will end up in a third party being thrown out Government.

I guess this is why this country of ours is called;

The United Kingdom of 'GREAT ' Britain and Northern Ireland .

See you at the polling station,

SS


(Having read through this post, in reference to the second paragraph, could Iraq claim on a third party fire and theft policy?) getting coat, bye!:=

Agent747
5th May 2005, 07:37
I am voting but more to make a statement about the war etc. Deep down we all know elections are a farce designed to keep minions like us at bay and happy/content with life. We all know leaders are not decided by us except through brainwashing and media campaigning. World leaders are decided collectively by elitests, corporates, bankers, financiers and loan sharks. It all takes place once a year at a meeting known as the Bilderberg event. Heard of it? No of course you havn't! Each year hundreds of the most richest (i.e. oil moguls), powerful (i.e. kings and queens) and influential (i.e. media tycoons) meet up and discuss what is best for us, this event is given a media blackout. Why?

Blair attended it, Clinton attended it, the Bush'ites practically have a monopoly in it, the Rockefellers, Rotchschilds, you name it...they're are there, collectively deciding on world affairs and issues. Conspiracy drivel? It certainly wouldn't be if it was given the media spotlight!

RANT OVER

Paterbrat
5th May 2005, 18:44
Not at all Abcus, after all when one has been used to the large letters commonly used in the Pirate series as put out by Min of Ed, it is an adjustment to the smaller tpe used here; but do persevere it's all worth the effort in the end.
I mean reading as opposed to my obviously more difficult to follow submissions.

Thankfully now the frantic politicing is over all will return to calm and I to shorter posts.
You could also always just block it... or visit the opticians?:ok:

McAero
5th May 2005, 19:10
your posts make my eyes hurt

It put me in mind of those pictures you used to get where you had to go cross-eyed in order for the 3D image to "jump out" the page.

Wedge
5th May 2005, 19:37
Agent747 - yes I have heard of the Bilderberg event, the Illuminati, the New World Order and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

Mostly a load of conspiracy theorist drivel, but like all of these tales there's usually an element of truth in there somewhere.

You have a point in as far as we don't really get to choose the leaders we want.

But tell me when and where Blair attended this event and what was said when he was there? :confused:

Rabid Dog
6th May 2005, 03:19
Don't vote - it only encourages them!
...and it doesn't change anything.

Yorks.ppl
6th May 2005, 09:03
My son young son asked me the other day, what is a general election?
My answer was, "it is when everybody in the country decides which set of rouges they want to nick all the taxes"

I didnt vote, why?
Because , coming as I do, from the north of England where working mens clubs are still common, I have identified the fact that all senior politicians are like dodgy WMC comitee members.

The similarities are striking, they lie to get elected, once in they line their own pockets at the expense of everybody else, and they will do anything to stay in power.

So there you have it, the new labour government, really just a bunch of WMC cronies who got lucky.

To those people who say "if you dont vote you cant comment or complain"

Two points, firstly, I can still complain, as you can see.

Secondly, since when did complaining make any diference anyhow.

Your dodgy club comitee have other plans for your money, responding to your complaints is not on their agenda.

People have said that we sould consider ourselves lucky to live in a democracy, well we dont.
Democracy suggests that the people decide what we as a country do. Unfortunately we dont, our system of government is antiquated in the extreme, it stems from a time when comunication was achieved by stage coach.
Your WMC comitte candidates tell you what they are going to do, you vote them in for 4 years, then they do as they please, all the lies they told you to get elected go out of the window. Why cant we sue them for breach of contract ?

I todays world why cant we have proper democracy? everybody now has access to a telephone, many have interactive TV, many more have internet, why dont the government set up a simple system so we can all vote on the issues of the day, case by case?
There is no reasonable argument against such a system, after all it would reflect exactly the views of the nation.

Hang on though, I think I see a problem for our WMC comitee friends. If we voted case by case we wouldnt need a parlement would we?
We would only need the civil servants to carry out the wishes of the people.
No ministers,
No prime minister.
No need for politicians.
No outflowing of public money to line the pockets of the cronies.
I think I see why this will never happen.
They will never relinquish their seat on the gravy train.

So next time you see the cabinet, imagine them, as I do, as a WMC comitee. If you have a problem achieving this, just take a look at John Prescot, he is the ultimate example, he contributes nothing, he is where he is because he is a self serving inarticulate bully who is happy to brawl in the street like a common drunk.
I am dread to think what the rest of the world thinks of our deputy prime minister.

Any one got any comments?:E

McAero
6th May 2005, 10:00
you just don't realise how lucky you are in this country to have the right to a vote. Voting does matter as I'm sure the Lib Dems and George Galloway (for example) will tell you this morning!

Secondly, since when did complaining make any diference anyhow.

errr, cause you're posting on here :E

tony draper
6th May 2005, 10:34
Does anybody think that the good people of this country would ever again elect say a bald fat man to the prime ministership? one is aware that technicaly speaking we do not elect a Prime Minister as such, but you know what I mean.
Its all showbiz now folks, celebrity get me into number ten.
:cool:

Yorks.ppl
6th May 2005, 11:09
Just a point further to my previous post.

I would like to be very clear that our right to vote is very dear to my heart.

It is a right that was won for us, and was defended in 2 world wars by brave men many of whom died to pay for our freedom today.

In our home, their sacrifice and the gift of freedom they gave us is never forgotten.

I can't believe though, that the Britain we have today was the country they hoped for.

We should all live our lives with respect for their sacrifice and I believe that the self serving politicians we have today dishonour their memory.

Curious Pax
6th May 2005, 11:16
Yorks.ppl - do you not see the irony (I could put it more strongly) of your 2 posts? Your second one would be admirable were it not for the fact that you didn't actually vote! Much like the WMCs you dislike, are you not saying one thing and doing another?

Yorks.ppl
6th May 2005, 11:41
Curious pax,

It is my view that casting a vote is not a matter to be taken lightly.
I will not vote because I am told to, I will not vote a certain way because my parents always did.

I have weighed carefully the arguments of the parties, I have taken into account their past record of honesty and integrity and have come to the conclusion that I cannot lend my support to any of them.

There is no duplicity in my actions.

In what way am I saying one thing and doing another?

To cast a vote is to say that you believe in the policies of the person you vote for and that you trust absolutely their integrity to faithfull represent your views.

Sadly I find no such candidate available.

ORAC
6th May 2005, 11:47
Does anybody think that the good people of this country would ever again elect say a bald fat man to the prime ministership?

Well there are a fair few number of commentators who say they would have this time, if the Tories had elected Ken Clarke as leader last time round....... ;)

McAero
6th May 2005, 12:19
watch out Ken Clarke.........:E Howard is resigning and the coast is clear for another one

Konkordski
6th May 2005, 21:30
a meeting known as the Bilderberg event. Heard of it? No of course you havn't!


Yes, I have heard of it. It's frequently mentioned in the media and journalists have even been invited to observe it, albeit in a non-reporting role - heard of that? No, probably because you'd rather believe the hype. After all, why let facts get in the way of a good story?

It sounds to me like you are far too caught up in your own paranoia to bother with research. So again we end up with the classic conspiracy scenario - you don't know what's taking place, therefore it must be an unpleasant global effort to ruin all our lives. And of course all evidence to the contrary is simply "part of the conspiracy" - while all evidence in favour is, for conveniently inexplicable reasons, perfectly sound.

If you're that brainwashed, don't blame the politicians or the media - you're doing a pretty good job of doing it to yourself.

Astrodome
6th May 2005, 22:03
There is no duplicity in my actions. In what way am I saying one thing and doing another? Your post carries little if any credibility.

Only 20% odd of of the voting polulation voted this bunch back into power.

People such as yourself who wasted a vote and then seek to justify it dismay me greatly.

I am quite sure that there would have been an independent candidate whom you could have voted for.

Your attempt at justifying your action does not bear much scrutiny.

Your failure to vote makes you guilty of allowing the present regime who have done (and will continue to do even greater harm) to the freedom this Country enjoys.

I suggest your intentional disenfranchisement also disenfranchises you from further comment?

SuperOwl
6th May 2005, 23:11
Yesterday I voted Labour which I'm sure will be frowned upon by the majority of people who post on Pprune. While I understand that a lot of people on here are staunch Conservative which is something that I totally respect and will not and (unless I've been on here while drunk out of my skull) have not criticised, hope it would be possible for people to return the courtesy? I thank you all in advance.

My reasons for doing so were simply because of all the parties, I felt that I agreed with more of their policies than those of the others. There were some areas where the Conservatives struck a chord but I just was not comfortable with the idea of subsidising the private healthcare of those who can probably afford it anyway. A shame really because out of the three main party leaders I found Michael Howard to be the most likeable. Sadly but simply, I just didn't like some of the Conservative policies.

As an aside and as testiment to Mr Howard on a personal level, I don't know how he kept his patience with the Loony Party candidate who kept interrupting everything anybody said with inane cheers that even your most intellectually challenged football fan would be embarassed by, is beyond me. He does strike me as being a genuinely nice man.

Perhaps a good job that he doesn't have the temperament of John Prescott?

As for Charles Kennedy, that man would argue that up is down and that black is white if he thought it would get him a vote. I was also quite amused at the "student vote" he was wooing. After all, some of the students (not all) would vote for the Chimps Tea Party if somebody told them to.

Despite me helping to keep Tony Blair in power (I have been tempted to use "Bliar" myself once or twice), I voted for the party whose policies I felt most comfortable with, not necessarily agree with. Personally, I think Blair should go and I did take great delight in watching Mr Keys make him squirm after his count. I simply cannot believe that an apology has not been forthcoming from the government.

I sincerely hope that this government is of great service to the people of the United Kingdom, regardless of whether I have voted for them or not. I also hope that some of those on here who clearly think that this government will fail in certain areas are wrong. Not because I want to be able to tell them so, but for them to be correct would be a very bad thing indeed.

Anyway, I voted differently to what most Ppruners would have done but only based on what I genuinely felt was best. Between now and the next election who knows? I may change my vote, I may stay the same but one thing is certain, I will keep an open mind.

But this is certain, I WILL use my vote. Hopefully unlike on this occasion it will as be used as a full endorsement and not be used as a compromise.

Apologies for the structure of my post but not the content, I have just got in from a stag do.

Thankfully, not my own.:ok:

Astrodome
7th May 2005, 00:13
idea of subsidising the private healthcare of those who can probably afford it anyway I think you have missed the point by 180 degrees. A person utilising private mediacal care pays for this out of their own money and thus relieves the strain on the NHS. Although they still pay for it, thus paying twice. So the bollocks about private medicine being a drain on the NHS is exactly that ...bollocks

I voted for the party whose policies I felt most comfortable with, not necessarily agree with Surely mutually incompatible ?

I sincerely hope that this government is of great service to the people of the United Kingdom, Obviously you are an optomist whose belief in the triumph of hope over experience is most touching if not a little naive.

I also hope that some of those on here who clearly think that this government will fail in certain areas are wrong. Not because I want to be able to tell them so, but for them to be correct would be a very bad thing indeed. A giant leap of faith that will in due course result in your disillusionment I fear

XXTSGR
7th May 2005, 03:00
Well, actually private healthcare is a drain on the NHS because of staff training requirements. It costs humoungous amounts to train doctors, nurses, physios, radiographers, pathologists, phlebotomists, lab technicians, etc. etc.

They are not "bonded" as such to the NHS and, on qualification, are totally at liberty to go to the private sector.

These training costs are one of the largest items in any SHA/PCT/HT's accounts. And the NHS gets no return on them, nor does the private sector put any money into training these professionals. Perhaps the situation would be more equitable if they were bonded and BUPA, PPP or whoever had to pay their training bond before employing them.

The irony is that, apart from paying to jump the queue, the standard of care in the vast majority of private institutions is no better than an NHS hospital.

Jerricho
7th May 2005, 03:08
They are not "bonded" as such to the NHS and, on qualification, are totally at liberty to go to the private sector.

Funny you should mention this. Does anybody actually know the percentage of staff working in the NHS who are from overseas. I know of at least 3 very close friends of mine from Australia who worked for a couple of years a locum physios in West London.

McAero
7th May 2005, 05:59
Superowl,

It seems you're trying to convince yourself rather than the other ppruners.

Yorks.ppl
7th May 2005, 08:26
Astrodome,

Your argument is based on party political beliefs, your chosen party didnt win, and your response to my post merely serves to demonstrate your frustration.
My failure to vote didnt result in a bunch of rouges being re elected any more than if I had voted and your chosen bunch of rogues had won.
I say again, I found no credible candidate to vote for.

You say my post lacks credibility, yet you fail completely to make any case against its content.
It is your post that lacks credibility, it is fatuous and has no substance.

Sour grapes perhaps?

SuperOwl
7th May 2005, 08:52
I've got to admit, I did find it hard to decide.

Astrodome, I stand by my opinion on the NHS in that to take money away from it in order to subsidise private treatment is wrong. I know that those who go private reduce waiting list etc but to make the treatment cheaper for those who choose to go private anyway just isn't on. I will admit that in some cases this would be beneficial to less well off people who may just manage to afford the subsidised treatment which would be of great benefit to them. No doubt you will point out that I have made these two opposing points but I stand by my overall view on this. Private healthcare is there as an option and if you want it, pay for it.

You also quote that I'm an optimist and perhaps naive? Thats your opinion and I do respect it. However, a little bit about me and my experience. I am 30 years old and left school while Mrs Thatcher was still in power and I was training to be an electrical engineer for a company who specialised in electrical motors. Most of our work was for the local collieries and in a lot of heavy engineering/ construction firms but the majority was for the coal board. Needless to say, that government who by now had a new leader went on to close the local collieries and indirectly put me and countless others out of work, not just the miners.

So you say I am naive? Hmmm.... Unfortunately Astrodome, my experience at the hands of the last Conservative government was a very bad one indeed. I spent a good few years going to college on day release working towards a HND for a job that somebody had already decided I would not have a hope in hell of keeping. A shame for me because I really enjoyed it.

However, I accept that with time, things change and at no point did I ever decide not to vote Conservate or any party for that matter (with the exception of the BNP). I was prepared to vote for the party whose policies I agreed with most of all which is what I did even though it was a very marginal decision.

I wasn't comfortable voting for Labour and whether any of you agree with me or not, I simply voted for what I considered to be the best option. I did consider not voting at all but that would have been pointless and if I should feel disillusioned by the next election as you think I will Astrodome, then I'll use my vote to express that.

McAero, there is some truth in what you say. I really didn't know who to vote for so the choice for me was either to not vote at all or come to a decision that could have gone another way entirely. If I made the wrong one, then no doubt myself and countless others will do something about it come the next election.

Have a good weekend guys, I'm now off down south to Finmere airfield to watch some moped racing and will more than likely end up taking part.

(edited for a couple of typo errors)

Duckbutt
7th May 2005, 12:00
Astrodome, thats the generally accepted electoral system. Whichever 'bunch' as you so patronisingly call them won would have only had 20% odd of the votes of the eligable population.

Got any better ideas or perhaps we should keep having vote after vote until the 'correct' party (by the standards of yours and certain others on this board) get elected?

Wedge
7th May 2005, 12:16
So the turnout was slightly up on 2001, which is at least progress in the right direction.

I'm of the view we should look at the FPTP system and see what can be done to make it more representative. I'm not of the view we should go for PR however, which leads almost always to ineffectual coalition governments.

It's true that Labour have got back with the smallest ever percentage share of the popular vote. But no government in recent times has ever been returned with more than 43.9% of the popular vote, which was what Thatcher got in 1979.

The increase in the LibDem vote is largely responsible for the reduced percentage share of the winning party; but one thing is for sure - if the other 'bunch' had got in it would have been with an even smaller share of the popular vote.

Astrodome
7th May 2005, 18:27
My failure to vote didnt result in a bunch of rouges being re elected any more than if I had voted and your chosen bunch of rogues had won. Surely you can see that had you voted then your vote would have been counted irrespective of who you voted for. You say you I found no credible candidate to vote for. Surely then your best course of action would have been to vote for the one that you LEAST disagreed with ? You took the easy way out, shrugged your shoulders and walked away. I say you should have looked at what the various Parties were offering and and you could at least have found something that you agreed with. I do not believe you are that bland. You see some 41% of the population took the same course of action as you did. Experience says that they will be some of the loudest complainers when the inevitable tax hikes come to visit to stay.

I find it sad that even now all over the world people are giving their lives and liberty for the freedom to exercise an opportunity to vote, as did many good men and women 60 odd years ago.

Democracy is taken lightly until it is gone and then it is too late. Our democracy has been under assault for 8 years now and will be further damaged during the next 4/5. If you don't believe me then just listen to the words of Greg Dyke the former BBC Director General, an avowed Labour supporter who had some very interesting things to say on that score earlier in the week.

Superowl
I stand by my opinion on the NHS in that to take money away from it in order to subsidise private treatment is wrong. I know that those who go private reduce waiting list etc but to make the treatment cheaper for those who choose to go private anyway just isn't on. How do you reach that conclusion?. Do you think that the NHS PAYS money to the private health care sector? (Actually it does for operations at private hospitals - which have actually increased under Labour and it has been stated will contunue to do so. Labour also have beeen in the fore-front of outsourcing many NHS services to the private sector). However to return to my point a typical person using the private care sector will do so having already paid for NHS services which they don't use. Many Companies actually buy private medical care for which those receiving the benefit pay tax at their highest rate.
I thus fail to see how the NHS are subsidising the private sector. Perhaps you will enlighten me?

Needless to say, that government who by now had a new leader went on to close the local collieries and indirectly put me and countless others out of work, not just the miners. Margaret Thatcher did not close the collieries. They were closed by British Coal. Your comment suggests years of conditioning by the usual leftwing fellow travellers.
Have you asked yourself whycoal production in this country stopped?. Well let me tell you. The price of extracting coal exceeded the price of coal available on the Continent. Whereas the British Government could not subsidise the coal sector, many EU governments ignored EU rules and did just that. This would be the same EU that Labour consistently supports and wants to be part of.

Many collieries became flooded during the strike when Scargill ( a LABOUR supporter and Trade Union leader) would not permit skeleton staff to maintain the pumps. These collieries were never able to be re-opened.

A further point.
Collieries continue to close under a LABOUR Government, one at Selby only recently. Want to re-consider your view?

Unfortunately Astrodome, my experience at the hands of the last Conservative government was a very bad one indeed. As someone who suffered under Labour Governments in the 1970's you don't even know the pain caused then, and you certainly cannot compare. I say that not to offend but to explain.

Remember also that the Country was on its knees following Labour's incompetence and massive overspending (remember we had to go to the EMF cap in hand to get money to continue. There were conditions applied to the loan of that money, something you need to remember as when Margaret Thatcher took power she had to tackle an economy that was on its knees and sinking. Before you go on to talk about the recession just remember also that this was not a UK recession. The whole world and particularly the EU was in recession.

Duckbutt
Got any better ideas or perhaps we should keep having vote after vote until the 'correct' party (by the standards of yours and certain others on this board) get elected? Figures show that the Conservatives polled over 60, 000 MORE votes than Labour did. The way that the electoral boundaries are currently set give considerable favour to Labour. As much as I hate the thought of PR (remember that the Italians have it and how many Governments have they had since the war?) it may be the only way. What is quite clear is that Labour only got a mandate from 22% of the people. Nothing can alter that fact. We have a Government that does not have the support of 78% of the voting population. Some of that is due to those who squandered their vote by abstaining and then seeking to justify this with fatuous excuses.

Wedge But no government in recent times has ever been returned with more than 43.9% of the popular vote, which was what Thatcher got in 1979. Yes but you need to validate that against the percentage of abstentions, which was much lower then than now. Labour have effectively made people disenfranchise themselves by their overt destruction of democracy, by their lies and evasion on points of public importance, their emasculation of Parliamentary scrutiny. Remember Dame Elizabeth Filkin?. She was appointed as Parliamemntary Standards commissioner under Major who to his credit accepted her judgements without question. Labour attempted to discredit her, tried to damage her reputation with lies and inuendo planted in the various Labour supporting toadying press, and eventually forced her to resign. They replaced her with someone whose criticism has been less than apparent. That is of course when the Labour MPs bother to attend to the Inquiry or are found to have lied time and time again. Even when one is (rarely) criticised Bliar is quick to ignore this and keep them in power or ensure their rapid return to the front bench. I am sure that you will recall a number of prominent Labour Cabinet Ministers who have fallen foul but not suffered.

The increase in the LibDem vote is largely responsible for the reduced percentage share of the winning party
How on earth did you reach that conclusion. The Conservatives took more seat off Labour than the LibDems.

Heliport
7th May 2005, 19:48
I assume Wedge means that a large number of people who would normally vote Labour voted LibDem as a protest against some of Blair's actions, such as taking us into the war against Iraq, or to make him take more notice of his party's wishes generally. ie With some exceptions, not enough for the LibDems to win the seat or for Labour to lose it to the Conservatives, but enough to reduce Labour's total vote.