Thats it, I give up. I'm never voting again!!!

[rebel warrior]

One other problem with abstaining though is that it lets the Government off the hook and doesn't encourage accountability - they just claim your non vote as 'contentment' with war and privatisation.

 

[ZWord]

I used to be an old labour voter then they turned right. I'd rather die than vote tory at any time.
I thought at least with the Lib Dems that they had retained some semblance of fair play and their stance on the Iraq war strenghened that view.
I have just heard that they have agreed to partly privatise the post office and to cut benefits to single parents ( in reality that means cuts to single parents kids!! ) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4774314.stm

I have no-0ne left to vote for in my area. I'm disenfranchised. I wonder how many more there are out there?

About 50% of the electorate I reckon, .. Maybe you should stand.

 

[ZWord]

voting eh? i'm with in bloom and einstein on this one.

no point. you vote for a politician, you elect a politician.

Why not vote for someone else then?

 

[In Bloom]

One other problem with abstaining though is that it lets the Government off the hook and doesn't encourage accountability - they just claim your non vote as 'contentment' with war and privatisation.

And if you vote they count it as unqualified, absolute support for their agenda. The government is going to come out with propaganda of one sort or another, no matter what. The important thing is to take action that you know makes a difference.

Edit: That's not to say I'm necessarily opposed to voting as a tactic in certain situations (for example I would happily vote to keep a BNP candidate out), but I also accept that those situations are rare and it is ultimately impossible to achieve any meaningful, long-term, social change through the ballot box.

 

[subversplat]

IMO that's only going to happen when people start rejoining the Labour Party and it starts getting it's balls back a bit.

This line of thought is a straight road to America style two-party bullshit, IMO. Everyone joins one of two monolith parties and tries to swing their internal politics to the left or right, then both put them forward for national election resulting in probably half the voting population rather unhappy with their lot.

If we absolutely have to vote for a government (for the sake of argument ) then the more parties with actual clearly defined and distinct policies the better, IMO.

 

[KeeperofDragons]

not voting

that's no alternative

KoD

 

[TeeJay]

I used to be an old labour voter then they turned right. I'd rather die than vote tory at any time.
I thought at least with the Lib Dems that they had retained some semblance of fair play and their stance on the Iraq war strenghened that view.
I have just heard that they have agreed to partly privatise the post office and to cut benefits to single parents ( in reality that means cuts to single parents kids!! ) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4774314.stm

I have no-0ne left to vote for in my area. I'm disenfranchised. I wonder how many more there are out there?

Vote Green.

 

[treelover]

I think in the short term its back to first principles defending what little we have left from the 1945 post war settlement from the ravages of neo-liberalism and privatisation. One interesting development is the new 'Keep Our NHS Public campaign/network: this genuinely grassroots organisation is the biggest decentralised, non-hierarchial non party movement since the poll tax. It seems to be passing under the radar of many 'activists' perhaps because it is not fashionable or sexy anymore. It is a network with massive growth and potential, however, unfortunately because of its nature, it is 'up for grabs' for power mongers, opportunists, as it were, and the dead hand of the trots/swp are trying to take it over already. Just google the list of speakers at KONP meetings.


http://www.keepournhspublic.com/index.php

theres also an embryonic campign against welfare cuts, its starting to have some impact and whats more its unlikely it will see any bandwagon jumpers,

http://www.swansheffield.org.uk

In the long term, a new red/green party, it won't win power, but it can 'rock the boat and preserve some gains...

 

[TeeJay]

Well, the best hope seems to me for now is if Respect and the Greens can get their act together by agreeing not to stand against each other wherever possible. That could help pave the way for the sort of radical new 'Red-Green alliance' that is needed.

Hopefully, these discussions on a local basis are taking place...

For the forthcoming local elections respect are standing maybe 50 candidates and the Green Party are standing maybe 900 or so.

Since Respect have already carefully picked areas with high numbers of Muslims to stand in London and Birmingham, what exactly does the Green Party stand to gain in any "deal"?

What kind of "deal" would you like to see? Is the party with the best track record in a certain area allowed to stand and the weaker one should agree not to stand? How exactly would you work this out if the two parties had not run head-to-head in that kind of election and/or in that area? Couldn't you only work this out somewhere down the road?

Also in the case of General Elections for example, where for the majority of seats neither party really thinks its going to win (withy the exception of Brighton (Greens) and Bethnal Green (Respect)) then surely both parties should run because iot will help raise their local profile and build the local party for other elections and campaigns?

The best case for not splitting the vote is in local elections when each party could agree to pick a differemnt target ward and not run in these ones, but still there is the problem of proving who has the best track record in a particular ward.

 

[snadge]

that's no alternative

KoD

sorry but it is to me.


If nobody voted, what would happen?

 

[Haller]

If you look at pretty much any advance (in lefty terms) in the last century it came from or through the Labour Party (either in government or part of a national government).

Beveridge?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

... It is a network with massive growth and potential, however, unfortunately because of its nature, it is 'up for grabs' for power mongers, opportunists, as it were, and the dead hand of the trots/swp are trying to take it over already. Just google the list of speakers at KONP meetings.


http://www.keepournhspublic.com/index.php
...

I did look at the list of speakers for forthcoming meetings and do not understand the point you are making. There seems to be quite a broad collection of speakers at these meetings, including Labour Party stalwarts like Frank Dobson and Peter Fisher who are well known for campaigning on health issues despite the position of their party in government. The only person I recognised who could be remotely described as a 'trot' is John Lister - and he's been working almost single-handedly on this sort of campaigning for the last 25 years, so he can hardly be described as an 'opportunist' or 'dead hand'.

Who did you have in my mind when you made this comment?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

For the forthcoming local elections respect are standing maybe 50 candidates ...

Respect are expecting to stand 51 candidates in Tower Hamlets alone and contest most, if not all, of the 60 seats in Newham. They'll also be standing candidates in a number of other cities. I'd expect the final tally of candidates to be at least double your estimate - over 100, probably nearer 150. There will also be Respect candidates for Mayoral elections, such as that in Hackney, which means that every elector there will have the chance to vote for a positive alternative to the three main parties.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Beveridge?

That was under a National Government as the original post made clear (Labour was in coalition; Attlee was Deputy Prime Minister).

The Liberal Government of 1906-11 is actually the most significant period of social and welfare reform not linked to Labour being in government. See:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=1169&HistoryID=ab07

for a good description.

 

[mutley]

For the forthcoming local elections respect are standing maybe 50 candidates and the Green Party are standing maybe 900 or so.

Since Respect have already carefully picked areas with high numbers of Muslims to stand in London and Birmingham, what exactly does the Green Party stand to gain in any "deal"?

What kind of "deal" would you like to see? Is the party with the best track record in a certain area allowed to stand and the weaker one should agree not to stand? How exactly would you work this out if the two parties had not run head-to-head in that kind of election and/or in that area? Couldn't you only work this out somewhere down the road?

Also in the case of General Elections for example, where for the majority of seats neither party really thinks its going to win (withy the exception of Brighton (Greens) and Bethnal Green (Respect)) then surely both parties should run because iot will help raise their local profile and build the local party for other elections and campaigns?

The best case for not splitting the vote is in local elections when each party could agree to pick a differemnt target ward and not run in these ones, but still there is the problem of proving who has the best track record in a particular ward.

There may well be areas where Respect and the Greens can help each other by not standing. In Brum, the seat where Salma Yaqoob got 10,500 votes also had a Green candidate who got 800. As the labour candidtae got 13,500 we will clearly be interested in avoiding this happening next time. I don't know where else the Greens may seriously target outside Brighton but I'm sure there are possibilities.

 

[snadge]

Respect are expecting to stand 51 candidates in Tower Hamlets alone and contest most, if not all, of the 60 seats in Newham. They'll also be standing candidates in a number of other cities. I'd expect the final tally of candidates to be at least double your estimate - over 100, probably nearer 150. There will also be Respect candidates for Mayoral elections, such as that in Hackney, which means that every elector there will have the chance to vote for a positive alternative to the three main parties.

I refuse to vote for that shower of shite...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

There may well be areas where Respect and the Greens can help each other by not standing. In Brum, the seat where Salma Yaqoob got 10,500 votes also had a Green candidate who got 800. As the labour candidtae got 13,500 we will clearly be interested in avoiding this happening next time. I don't know where else the Greens may seriously target outside Brighton but I'm sure there are possibilities.

There ought to be possibilities in the North West.

Preston is the only place in the region where Respect outpolled the Greens in 2004 (Euro election result). In the 2005 locals Respect got 2,700+ 10%+, but are only standing candidates this May in the 3 or 4 immediately winnable wards where the Respect vote is 20%+. If the Greens are wanting to build support in Preston, they should agree to stand in other wards and I'd welcome that - but if they stood against Respect that would be terrible and would possibly cost Respect seats. In Lancaster, Greens have councillors and contest every ward so that makes it difficult for Respect to consider standing, even though there might be a Respect vote. If the Greens go head to head against Respect in Preston, there would be the temptation to repeat it in Lancaster.

Both parties have difficulty contemplating standing in Burnley where the threat of the BNP winning seats is so high. There are no elections in Blackburn. Respect are only standing one candidate in Manchester, and (I think) one candidate in Liverpool, so it ought to be possible to come to some arrangement there.

 

[poster342002]

Why do people on the left put so much hope in various forms of "green-ism" when all the "solutions" they appear to offer to the worlds' problems seem to involve pricing the poor off everything?

 

[subversplat]

Why do people on the left put some much hope in various forms of "green-ism" when all the "solutions" they appear to offer to the worlds' problems seem to involve pricing the poor off everything?

If all the poor people starve and/or freeze to death, everyone will be better off by average

 

[_angel_]

I used to be an old labour voter then they turned right. I'd rather die than vote tory at any time.
I thought at least with the Lib Dems that they had retained some semblance of fair play and their stance on the Iraq war strenghened that view.
I have just heard that they have agreed to partly privatise the post office and to cut benefits to single parents ( in reality that means cuts to single parents kids!! ) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4774314.stm

I have no-0ne left to vote for in my area. I'm disenfranchised. I wonder how many more there are out there?

menzies campbell or whoever they pick has as much chance of becoming british prime minister as I have. So not to worry.

 

[fela fan]

Hear Hear.

Ditto Evo Morales in Bolivia.

There ARE differences between one politician and the next.

Hmmm. Yes, but given time, and the corrosive influence of power, their impact is minimal at best. I think politics is the problem. It is outdated and proved it does not work. Whatever advances are made, there is still rampant injustice, and a violent world.

The trouble with politics in the modern day is the people pulling the strings behind the scenes are not those that we elect. We need to look more closely at the role that business plays in making politicians act in the way they do. Rampant capitalism twinned with money politics has nothing to offer ordinary people except poverty and strife and war.

This human world is built on a two-edged sword. People, in their capacity as humans with inbuilt need to relate to other humans, either dominate others, or submit to others.

The answer lies in finding our own individuality while at the same time relating to others through self-respect and respect for all, not by submitting or dominating. We can never dominate enough, nor submit enough, it is a vicious circle.

Only through a path of loving all (including, vitally, oneself), compassion for fellow living creatures, can we progress away from the inevitable war and injustice that is our world.

Politics, in all its guises, divides and kills. If not today, then tomorrow.

Love for all is the only guarantee against our own destruction.

 

[fela fan]

sorry but it is to me.


If nobody voted, what would happen?

This is exactly what should happen. We kid ourselves that we have freedom by having a vote a couple of times a decade. We have not learnt how to free ourselves from collective thought. And that is organised through the medium of politics and media.

There's too much obedience, and it's ingrained in us as soon as we start speaking.

It's not the politicians we need to change, it's those that pull the strings behind the scenes that we need to change. And that can only happen when we recognise the futility of voting for mp x or mp y. Coz all that's going to happen is that they give into the demands of the rich and powerful. This group just want more and more, if they stopped looking for more and more, they'd lose their reason for living. Hence they cannot stop. Retaining one's soul is impossible once on the path of power and money. Our society is riddled with the need for power/money/fame.

People need to free themselves first. Fuck politics, we will never escape the chains...

 

[netbob]

Beveridge?

Granted he was a Liberal, but the report was commissioned by Labour members of the National Government, implemented by a Labour government and (according to Paul Foots The Vote anyway) most of the meat of it came from the TUC.

 

[TAE]

We have not learnt how to free ourselves from collective thought.

Sorry, that made me laught - using a collective pronoun in that context.


Brian: You are all individuals.
Crowd: We are all individual.

 

[Streathamite]

unsually high typo-count for me

IMO that's only going to happen when people start rejoining the Labour Party and it starts getting it's balls back a bit.

having seen thru'out the 90s, a never-ending stream of just about every decent and even semi-socialist activist in the GLLP (and half those in brum) leaving in disgust, and having left meself in 1999, I really, really can't see it happening for a long, long time, if ever.
Why should we? to get sold out and fucked over again?
my reading is that a membership (what's left of it) which lets blair & brown do all they've done is hardly waiting its' first chance to rise up.
I think the leadership have SDPised the party too much for it ever to be reclaimed.

If you look at pretty much any advance (in lefty terms) in the last century it came from or through the Labour Party (either in government or part of a national government).

a) the 1910 budget - 'people's budget', pensions, welfare and all - was a 1005 Liberal's budget.
b) the 1944 education act, whilst coming from a coalition govt - was the handiwork of a Tory Education secretary (rab butler).
3. Any progressive measures that come from ANY govt do not happen solely as a result of MP's altruism; they come about ultimately due to pressure or impetus from the people.

 

[TeeJay]

Why do people on the left put so much hope in various forms of "green-ism" when all the "solutions" they appear to offer to the worlds' problems seem to involve pricing the poor off everything?

Given that the poorest people in London for example use public transport (particularly buses) the pricing is falling on car drivers and the money is going towards public transport - this concrete example from a place where the Green party has had an impact by being on the London Assembly doesn't fit in with what you are claiming at all.

The Green Party has very progressive policies towards benefits, public spending and taxation and any eco-taxes are only supported if there are countervailing changes in benefits and taxes to ensure that the poorest are not made worse off.

Mind you there are some people running around calling themselves "green" and saying all sorts of things - just as there are with "socialists", "democrats" and "liberals". Not everything is what it says on the tin.

 

[netbob]

Why should we? to get sold out and fucked over again?
my reading is that a membership (what's left of it) which lets blair & brown do all they've done is hardly waiting its' first chance to rise up.
I think the leadership have SDPised the party too much for it ever to be reclaimed.

I agree there is very little reason to join. Ive never been a member of any party, post 1997 (I turned 18 a year before that) there has been very little reason too. It's just I dont really see anything else appearing on the political landscape (with the exception of more independent MP's that I mentioned above). All the talk of new parties just seems a waste of time to me.

a) the 1910 budget - 'people's bufget', pensions, welfare and all - was a 1005 Liberal's budget.

Didnt know about that one

b) the 1944 education act, whilst coming from a coalition govt - was the handiwork of a Tory Education secretary (rab butler).

That was the one I was thinking of when I said 'pretty much'. The fact that the tories pretty much nationalised education gets totally ignored is quite interesting.

3. Any progressive easures that come from ANY govt do not happen solely as a result of MP's altruism; they come about ultimately due to pressure or impetus from the people.

Hopefully the use of the internet might start detatching MPs from the Whips a bit. Then (again hopefully) they might be a bit more open to that kind of presure.

 

[Streathamite]

it won't detach 'em AT ALL; the reason why is simple.
The whips are the HoCs bruisers, they enforce party discipline on rebellious MPs. any MP, in any party, is ordered to vote by whipping. any that rebel see their names in the 'naughty book'. so any MP who wants to rise to high office CAN'T do it by voting against the whip. his dissidence will be known to the brass. If he is especially troublesome, they could also pressurise his CLP into deselection. we live in a Party system, and MPs need their jobs, and seats, as part of their living. so the age of the truly independent MP is all but gone.
as for the awkward squad who always rebel - the govt gave up bothering about them years ago. they simply marginalise them.
Ironically, the conditions actually exist more for rebellion in the Lp now than at any time since the early 80s; we have a raft of unpopular govt actions/laws/measures - Iraq, supporting bush.education bill, ID cards, civil liberties infringements etc - which go further away from labour's historic mission than ever before.
and - crucially - we have a PM who we KNOW will step down some time in the next 2/3 years (so no point sucking up to him), and a whole host of REALLY embittered ex-ministers on the govt benches.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Jezza
a) the 1910 budget - 'people's bufget', pensions, welfare and all - was a 1005 Liberal's budget.

Didnt know about that one

What do they teach in schools these days? It was quite a famous constitutional crisis that resulted in two general elections in 1910. The Labour Party manifesto for the first one makes shocking reading

January 1910 Labour Party General Election Manifesto

A general election has been forced upon the country by the action of the House of Lords rejecting the Budget. The great question you are to decide is whether the Peers or the people are to rule this country.

Each Session since the last general election important Bills, upon which the House of Commons had spent much time, have been mutiliated or destroyed by the House of Lords, an irresponsible body which represents nothing but its own class interests. Not content with this, they now claim the right to decide what taxes shall be paid, upon whom they shall be levied, and for what purpose they shall be spent. They also claim to dictate the date at which Parliament shall be dissolved. The time has come to put an end to their power to override the will of the Commons.

The country has allowed landowners to pocket millions of pounds every year in the share of unearned increment, and yet they object to pay a small tax upon what, in justice, should belong to the State. They wish at all costs to preserve their power to plunder the people.

The Labour party welcomes this opportunity to prove that the feudal age is past and that the people are no longer willing to live on the sufferance of the Lords.

The issues you have to decide are simple. Our present system of land ownership has devastated our countryside, has imposed heavy burdens upon our industries, has cramped the development of our towns, and has crippled capital and impoverished labour.

The Lords must go
...

The experience of the last four years has demonstrated the value of the Labour Party acting on independent lines. There still remain many problems to be solved.


The right to work has still to be won, but is now well within the range of practical politics.
The Poor Law must be broken up and pauperism abolished.
Old-age pensions must be extended and increased on their present non-contributory basis.
Restrictions upon the franchise, including the sex bar, must be swept away.

The working and middle classes are still overburdened with rates and taxes. All these problems will demand the attention of an active, determined, and independent party, drawn from the people and in touch with the people. The Labour Party, therefore, appeals to you to renew your confidence in it, to add to its ranks, and increase its power.

Vote for the Labour candidates.

The land for the people.

The wealth for the wealth producers.

Down with privilege.

Up with the people.

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1910/jan/1910-jan-labour-manifesto.shtml

 

[Streathamite]

shocking in the sense of...?