Election time!

[David Bedlam]

It's the British election seasion again! The political parties are trying to get my vote!

Labour is promising me that me that the economy will be extra super strong! As long as you don't work on something that can be done cheeper abroad.

The Conservatives are prominsing me the right to beat immigrants and gypsies with sticks.

The Liberal Democrats are going on about unified income tax or something. I wasn't really paying attention to them.

UKIP is promising to turn time back to 1943.

The Greens are promising me a hug.

The Monster Raving Loony party wants to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a house of cards. (This one is true!)

Right now I'm wavering between the Greens and the Ravers. Mainly because I've lost all faith in the main three parties, and these two are the fringe parties with the fewest numbers of lunatics for members. The Ravers sound fun, and the Green's social policies appeal to my hippy drippy political views. Except for their cannabis policy (keep it as a class C drug, and not return it to class B) and fox hunting (they'll keep it banned).

According to www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com my view are best served by the Greens, with my test scoring twenty points for the Greens (I got an impressive minus twenty six for Labour, and a real WTF moment when UKIP got 17, bringing to equal with the Lib Dems in my eyes apparently).

And my first election to! I'ld feel excitied if I wasn't borderline appethetic.

[Gaz]

I did that test just now. I got the Lib Dems,followed by the Greens, and they were the only positive results. (LD was 67, Greens was 43) which is what I expected.

[anthony!]

Okay I'm a little confused.

How does the PM "call" an election— is there not a set time for a general election?

I know I'm a stupid American, but European structures confuse the hell out of me. Is the House of Lords elected? Who really chooses the PM? Argh. I even LIVED in England for 9 months and half this shit went over my head. Well, when I wasn't drinking...

[Gaz]

Okay I'm a little confused.

How does the PM "call" an election— is there not a set time for a general election?

I know I'm a stupid American, but European structures confuse the hell out of me. Is the House of Lords elected? Who really chooses the PM? Argh. I even LIVED in England for 9 months and half this shit went over my head. Well, when I wasn't drinking...
No, there's no set time, although it can't be more than 5 years after the last one. And technically the Queen does it, the PM just asks her. Although, in practice she won't say no, so it amounts to him doing it.
The HoL is appointed, not elected and used to be moslty hereditary. I'm not thrilled either...
The PM is the leader of the party that has the overall majority of seats after the GE. So the party really chooses him, long before the election.

[Lunar Daydreamer]

Woooo, who do I vote for?!

The liar that's been in power (Blair)?!
The positively creepy liar who i'd trust even less than the liar in power (Howard)
Or maybe the wet, flakey liar which tries to straddle the middle ground of the other two (Kennedy)

*Sigh* :(

Apathy ... consuming ... me!

[Gaz]

Woooo, who do I vote for?!

The liar that's been in power (Blair)?!
The positively creepy liar who i'd trust even less than the liar in power (Howard)
Or maybe the wet, flakey liar which tries to straddle the middle ground of the other two (Kennedy)

*Sigh* :(

Apathy ... consuming ... me!
Kennedy's a politician, so he is technically a liar, but he lies much less fequently and significantly than the other two.
Blair: Public services will increase but taxes will not!
Howard: Services will improve but taxes will be cut!
Kennedy: Um, we have to raise taxes to pay for services, and we will...

[Dreadstar]

I'm assuming that if the majority of the Brits were vehemently against America's Imperialist invasion of Iraq, they'll most certainly get rid of Bush's lap-dog, Blair, right?

[Gaz]

I'm assuming that if the majority of the Brits were vehemently against America's Imperialist invasion of Iraq, they'll most certainly get rid of Bush's lap-dog, Blair, right?
It's more complicated than that, a lot of people resent him lying about WHY we needed to go into Iraq more than actually doing so. And Howard's record isn't great either, he was Home Secretary during the worst economic period of the last Conservative government.

[Dreadstar]

That's my point Gaz, thanks for clarifying it.

Last November, there were a great many Brits who couldn't fathom that the U.S. re-elected Bush because he lead us into war with Iraq. But, you know, It *IS* more complicated than that.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a Bush-Bash thread (which it *IS* about to become, you just watch), just that if the most important thing in the Brits political world is Iraq, then Blair should be gone, and if he isn't then obviously it isn't the most important thing to the Brits. Did that make sense?

[Gaz]

That's my point Gaz, thanks for clarifying it.

Last November, there were a great many Brits who couldn't fathom that the U.S. re-elected Bush because he lead us into war with Iraq. But, you know, It *IS* more complicated than that.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a Bush-Bash thread (which it *IS* about to become, you just watch), just that if the most important thing in the Brits political world is Iraq, then Blair should be gone, and if he isn't then obviously it isn't the most important thing to the Brits. Did that make sense?
There is likely to be a lot of lost labour votes due to him lying outright though. Saying that Iraq was a direct threat to Britain when it was clearly not. Most folk feel unable to trust him anymore, but a lot don't trust Howard anyway. Which is partly why I'm a Lib Dem voter. That and their policies make actual sense rather than just good soundbites.
Oh, and I can't undrstand why anyone voted for Bush the first time, given his health, education and social security policy as well as his apparant lack of leadership and charisma, and his connection to big business.
My point being that I'm not basing my dislike on just the war... :D

[anthony!]

No, there's no set time, although it can't be more than 5 years after the last one. And technically the Queen does it, the PM just asks her. Although, in practice she won't say no, so it amounts to him doing it.
The HoL is appointed, not elected and used to be moslty hereditary. I'm not thrilled either...
The PM is the leader of the party that has the overall majority of seats after the GE. So the party really chooses him, long before the election.

Hmmm. So basically the House of Lords is like the U.S. Senate, when senators were appointed by state governors, and the PM is like a more-powerful, more influential version of the House of Represantives' Speaker of the House. That sucks.

Anyone ever propose just electing the PM seperately, presidential-style? The current system seems to work for you guys though...

[Dreadstar]

Oh, and I can't undrstand why anyone voted for Bush the first time, given his health, education and social security policy as well as his apparant lack of leadership and charisma, and his connection to big business.
My point being that I'm not basing my dislike on just the war...

And those are each far better reasons not to vote for him, too.

But back to Blair...

You really think that he'll be ousted because he's been dishonest? I mean, he's a politician. Isn't that like, redundant?

[Gaz]

Hmmm. So basically the House of Lords is like the U.S. Senate, when senators were appointed by state governors, and the PM is like a more-powerful, more influential version of the House of Represantives' Speaker of the House. That sucks.

Anyone ever propose just electing the PM seperately, presidential-style? The current system seems to work for you guys though...
That would involve abolition of the monarchy, which I'm all for, btw, but not everyone agrees. Ditto for electing a second house instead of the Lords, no-one can agree how it would be structured.

[Gaz]

And those are each far better reasons not to vote for him, too.

But back to Blair...

You really think that he'll be ousted because he's been dishonest? I mean, he's a politician. Isn't that like, redundant?
This isn't dishonesty, like "Tax cuts for all!". Which is clearly a vote getter. This is straight out lying, "We are in danger of being blown up by Saddam in less than an hour!" which I resent him doing when "Iraqi people are beaten, killed and worse if they disagree with him! We should help those people resist!" would work, and is true.
And no, I think he'll be back this time, but his majority will be smaller. And Brown's likely to take over mid-way anyhow.

[David Bedlam]

Apathy ... consuming ... me!

Vote Green Party!

They're cute and cuddly and have trousers made of grass!

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a Bush-Bash thread (which it *IS* about to become, you just watch), just that if the most important thing in the Brits political world is Iraq,

Noooooooo! My thread!

And no, I think he'll be back this time, but his majority will be smaller. And Brown's likely to take over mid-way anyhow.

This is another thing I don't like. I want my PM to be decided via an election, not through some back room deal by a couple of wheeler-deelers.

Another thing I really don't like about Blair's administration is the way he runs it. In the old days, whenever something important was agreed upon is was done in a proper meeting with minutes taken and everything. Nowadays, many really important desistions regarding policy and whatnot are made done the phone, in the corridors and on the sofa in Blair's office. No minutes taken or recording whatsoever. So now we don't really know policies came to be fixed upon, i.e. the Iraq Invasion. This is really hindering political accountability, which is something a healthy democracy really needs.