No thanks. It's a shame when the only alternatives are even worse than the main parties.
You say that but you then go on to say you can't put a fag paper between the main parties, mainly because they look and sound the same. UKIP is different.
I stopped coming on this site for 4 months this year after getting sucked into a politics debate around the time Margaret Thatcher passed away so must promise myself not to get reeled in again, especially as by and large I am fairly apathetic.
Just have to accept we are all different.
Just don't vote labour ok
There's more chance me winning the lottery than bloody Labour.
No thanks. It's a shame when the only alternatives are even worse than the main parties.
You say that but you then go on to say you can't put a fag paper between the main parties, mainly because they look and sound the same. UKIP is different.
Different, but not in a good way (in my opinion, you're free to have your own).
I'll consider voting for one of the main parties (well, two of them. One will always be shunned) when any of their MPs have actually done a proper days graft and made their own way in life through hard work and endeavour first.
More independents/smaller parties. More people actually voting based on policy and not just a labour/conservative choice.
The thing is every party/politician say one thing in their manifestos then do the opposite when voted in. Think All parties should be made to follow through with what they promised.
When my husband had a problem with the Department for Work & Pensions, he contacted Hugh Robertson, who is now Sports Minister and our MP. Mr Robertson quickly sorted out the problem to our satisfaction, something which would never have happened had we continued to struggle with the DWP ourselves.
My husband wrote to thank him for his help and he sent a letter back thanking my husband for his letter. He said that very few people bother to send thanks if he has helped them.
I'm only posting this to show that some MP's do work for their constituents.
When I was having trouble with Lewisham Council in the late 90s I went to see my MP. Jim Dowd, at his Friday night surgery in Lewisham Town Hall. He told me he could not help as He worked for Lewisham Council. I said No, you work for the constituents who live in Lewisham, Catford, Sydenham. I was asked to leave, and told not to make any more appointments with my MP.
I'm only posting this to show that some MP's don't give a toss about their constituents.
More independents/smaller parties. More people actually voting based on policy and not just a labour/conservative choice.
The thing is every party/politician say one thing in their manifestos then do the opposite when voted in. Think All parties should be made to follow through with what they promised.
Much the same for wives pre-marriage.
Marginally more seriously though, who would police this and what is the penalty for failure ?
If I knew the answers I would be clever. Just don't understand how the political parties can promise something to get your vote, then backtrack as soon as they have a sniff of power. Why promise something you are not going to deliver ?
If I knew the answers I would be clever. Just don't understand how the political parties can promise something to get your vote, then backtrack as soon as they have a sniff of power. Why promise something you are not going to deliver ?
Because for 99.9% of them it's a career not a calling to change the society they live in.
If I knew the answers I would be clever. Just don't understand how the political parties can promise something to get your vote, then backtrack as soon as they have a sniff of power. Why promise something you are not going to deliver ?
Generally speaking, because elections are a bidding war and parties that don't make an ambitious offer won't win support. This is especially true now that voters are more willing to switch between parties. Once in power you have to deal with the realities, which are the same whatever your politics.
Frankly, you'd have to be bonkers to go into politics as a career in most local authorities. That's who so many councillors are over 50 (not that they're bonkers, although some are, but because they are not looking for a career). It's a lot of hard work and grief for very little money, with the occasional rewarding moment when you actually solve someone's problem. But I do think the professional politician in parliament with no life experience is a damaging phenomenon.
I didn't vote for the Liberal's plan because I couldn't see how it was fairer counting second choices - it was just different. Fairer would be listening to people's first choices!!!
Agree, it isn't in the interests of Labour or the Conservatives! But it is in the interests of democracy!!!
If I knew the answers I would be clever. Just don't understand how the political parties can promise something to get your vote, then backtrack as soon as they have a sniff of power. Why promise something you are not going to deliver ?
Generally speaking, because elections are a bidding war and parties that don't make an ambitious offer won't win support. This is especially true now that voters are more willing to switch between parties. Once in power you have to deal with the realities, which are the same whatever your politics.
Frankly, you'd have to be bonkers to go into politics as a career in most local authorities. That's who so many councillors are over 50 (not that they're bonkers, although some are, but because they are not looking for a career). It's a lot of hard work and grief for very little money, with the occasional rewarding moment when you actually solve someone's problem. But I do think the professional politician in parliament with no life experience is a damaging phenomenon.
I think that is a bad excuse, basically parties say things to win power then the public have to face reality once they are in goverment. It's sounds like a con and they are pretty much treating the voters like fools. Politics in this Country is like a seesaw, it's ethier the Tories or Labour in power because voters get fed up when they are in goverment. I am personally fed up with both of them which is why I am voting for UKIP at the next election because they are a different alternative and I like their policies.
I have to admire candidates like yourself though as I could not help noticing you represented Labour in Bexleyheath 2010 because at least you had a real job and experienced real life, unlike most polititians. Not that I would have voted for you though as I would not vote for anyone representing Labour. Most in UKIP had some kind of real job experience - Farage in particular ran his own company and commuted to London.
I didn't vote for the Liberal's plan because I couldn't see how it was fairer counting second choices - it was just different. Fairer would be listening to people's first choices!!!
Agree, it isn't in the interests of Labour or the Conservatives! But it is in the interests of democracy!!!
The only way it would be slightly fairer is that it would give people a bit more confidence to put a smaller party at 1, knowing they haven't wasted their vote because their 2nd vote would count for a bigger party if the smaller one failed.
I hear time and time again people complaining that parties don't follow through on an election pledge, but I hear precious little evidence that this is actually the case.
The current government for example made election pledges based on being a majority government, which they are not. Anything vaguely resembling proportional representation means less gets done because there will always be someone with influence who can block it.
No perfect electoral system exists, but ours is one the best around.
If I knew the answers I would be clever. Just don't understand how the political parties can promise something to get your vote, then backtrack as soon as they have a sniff of power. Why promise something you are not going to deliver ?
Perhaps they were all plumbers, electricians or carpet layers in a previous life? :-)
how relevant to 2013 is a room full of hoorays "debating" issues in the vein of a 2nd rate stand-up comics? why the continued focus on witty one-liners and quips? enough i say. its no benefit and only allows career orators to progress.
how about this crazy idea of our politicians focussing on technical work firstly before then intergrating with their communites? not one day a month surgeries, i mean a permament base.
why does the UK need to support a glorified Bullingdon club and pass it off as a house of parliament...and they are all like that these days...show me more than 10 percent of the average man represented in the Lower House and ill show you moon.
society has entered the information age. i do not see the need to debate such information in a style that has little relevant to 99% of the population.
some of the best parliament performers turned out to be the most abbhorent and snidey politicians (Phoney Tony, William Hague) whereas some guys who werent so good at banter actually turned out to be clever and astute policy makers (i really rate IDS on this front).
of course the current system means that some Whitehall back-office mandarin does the work and then it needs a smooth Miliband or Big Dave to vocalise this. but why?
I'm no great admirer of politicians of any party. But it would be good if some time could be spent educating the great British public on precisely what a politician does for a living. Debating in the HoC is the most prominent but only a very small part of the day-to-day business of an MP. Most sit on some committee or another and work on the drafting of new laws/statutory instruments and attend meetings or write letters on behalf of their constituents. A significant number are either Ministers or Shadow Ministers with all the responsibilities those portfolios entail. It's the precise understanding and drafting of laws that often preclude the type of person that everyone says they want representing them - someone who has experience of doing a "proper job" - from sitting as an MP. They usually do not have the skills required and why they rarely get nominated by the local party members. It explains why a hefty number of MPs are either qualified lawyers, accountants or have some other professional qualification.
Comments
Think All parties should be made to follow through with what they promised.
My husband wrote to thank him for his help and he sent a letter back thanking my husband for his letter. He said that very few people bother to send thanks if he has helped them.
I'm only posting this to show that some MP's do work for their constituents.
I'm only posting this to show that some MP's don't give a toss about their constituents.
Marginally more seriously though, who would police this and what is the penalty for failure ?
By the way "I blame Thatcher".
Just don't understand how the political parties can promise something to get your vote, then backtrack as soon as they have a sniff of power. Why promise something you are not going to deliver ?
Frankly, you'd have to be bonkers to go into politics as a career in most local authorities. That's who so many councillors are over 50 (not that they're bonkers, although some are, but because they are not looking for a career). It's a lot of hard work and grief for very little money, with the occasional rewarding moment when you actually solve someone's problem. But I do think the professional politician in parliament with no life experience is a damaging phenomenon.
Agree, it isn't in the interests of Labour or the Conservatives! But it is in the interests of democracy!!!
I have to admire candidates like yourself though as I could not help noticing you represented Labour in Bexleyheath 2010 because at least you had a real job and experienced real life, unlike most polititians. Not that I would have voted for you though as I would not vote for anyone representing Labour. Most in UKIP had some kind of real job experience - Farage in particular ran his own company and commuted to London.
The current government for example made election pledges based on being a majority government, which they are not. Anything vaguely resembling proportional representation means less gets done because there will always be someone with influence who can block it.
No perfect electoral system exists, but ours is one the best around.
how relevant to 2013 is a room full of hoorays "debating" issues in the vein of a 2nd rate stand-up comics? why the continued focus on witty one-liners and quips? enough i say. its no benefit and only allows career orators to progress.
how about this crazy idea of our politicians focussing on technical work firstly before then intergrating with their communites? not one day a month surgeries, i mean a permament base.
why does the UK need to support a glorified Bullingdon club and pass it off as a house of parliament...and they are all like that these days...show me more than 10 percent of the average man represented in the Lower House and ill show you moon.
society has entered the information age. i do not see the need to debate such information in a style that has little relevant to 99% of the population.
some of the best parliament performers turned out to be the most abbhorent and snidey politicians (Phoney Tony, William Hague) whereas some guys who werent so good at banter actually turned out to be clever and astute policy makers (i really rate IDS on this front).
of course the current system means that some Whitehall back-office mandarin does the work and then it needs a smooth Miliband or Big Dave to vocalise this. but why?
Debating in the HoC is the most prominent but only a very small part of the day-to-day business of an MP.
Most sit on some committee or another and work on the drafting of new laws/statutory instruments and attend meetings or write letters on behalf of their constituents. A significant number are either Ministers or Shadow Ministers with all the responsibilities those portfolios entail.
It's the precise understanding and drafting of laws that often preclude the type of person that everyone says they want representing them - someone who has experience of doing a "proper job" - from sitting as an MP. They usually do not have the skills required and why they rarely get nominated by the local party members. It explains why a hefty number of MPs are either qualified lawyers, accountants or have some other professional qualification.