Conquer Club

This is aimed at both those who can vote and those that can't. Literally, who would you vote for given the opportunity.

If you don't have much background in British politics, I'll add a brief (and wholly subjective) summary:

Labour:
The current ruling party. Led by Gordon Brown, the current Prime Minister. Traditionally the socialist party in British politics, but drifted towards the right under Tony Blair. Their traditional base is the working class and unions, but now have a far stronger base among the middle classes than before. Weakened significantly by perceptions of mismanagement, suggestions that they bowed to US leadership too much, and a series of scandals over financial impropriety that occurred under their watch.

Conservatives:
The current leading opposition party. Led by David Cameron. Traditionally the right wing party in British politics, but again, drifted slightly leftwards in recent times. Their traditional base is the middle class, but now have a far stronger base among people who feel aggrieved by Labour government in all areas. Their main weaknesses are the memories of the Thatcher government (the last effective Conservative government), a perception that they are better opponents than proponents of legislation, and the idea that they are very close to the Labour position in the majority of cases.

Liberal Democrats:
Traditionally Britain's third party. Led by Nick Clegg. Initially centrist, but now arguably slightly to the left of either main party. Traditionally the party chosen by those who reject the main parties, and with a fairly youthful base at the moment. Their main weakness is their lack of experience in government.

The others that I've listed are outliers, significantly unlikely to gain parliamentary power:

UKIP:
Hold a philosophy that the UK should not be involved in Europe, and specifically in the EU.

Green:
The environmentalist party.

BNP:
Traditionally the extreme right party, notable for neo-Nazism and skinheads. Have recently made attempts to gain more respectability under the leadership of Nick Griffin.

Heads up, I'm a Liberal Democrat man myself. Also, for anyone posting from the US, be aware that the names of the parties and my descriptions are from a broadly UK point of view. Conservative, for example, would not mean conservative in the US sense.

Now I know exactly how you Brits feel about US politics.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Now I know exactly how you Brits feel about US politics.

Indeed. I'm not really expecting much from this thread, what with the majority of posters being US based. Thought I'd try at least- it's pretty important to the UK, and we are labouring under the illusion that we have a "special relationship" with the US. The wars are kind of rocking that for the Labour and Conservative parties. Supporting the US doesn't seem like such a great idea.

The next set of elections will likely change the way that the US and the UK relate, as well as the relationship between the EU and both. I'm very pro UK-US relations, but I don't know of anyone who's even remotely interested on the other side of the Atlantic on these boards.

A figure-head for the Monarch, eh?

Beware the Spanish Armada.

Army of GOD wrote:A figure-head for the Monarch, eh?

Beware the Spanish Armada.

Heh- the defeat of the Spanish Armada is still a point of pride, and one of the points where British people mark the difference between an absolute monarch and a constitutional monarchy. The distinction is kind of wrong in a lot of respects, but that's history for you.

Most British people have no real problem with the monarchy- they have no power. There is a big issue with certain hereditary powers within the House of Lords though. Under Labour that was reformed heavily, but not far enough in my mind.

I would likely vote Green due to what I consider to have been a hash job by the labour party. Labour is the closest to the Canadian Liberal party so they would probly get my vote most of the time.

Baron Von PWN wrote:I would likely vote Green due to what I consider to have been a hash job by the labour party. Labour is the closest to the Canadian Liberal party so they would probly get my vote most of the time.

Sure- and that's fair comment. Still, it should be noted that the Greens are unlikely to get a single seat. They are, traditionally, a protest vote.

Symmetry wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:I would likely vote Green due to what I consider to have been a hash job by the labour party. Labour is the closest to the Canadian Liberal party so they would probly get my vote most of the time.

Sure- and that's fair comment. Still, it should be noted that the Greens are unlikely to get a single seat. They are, traditionally, a protest vote.

Same in Canada, except here political parties get a dollar or so for every vote so its not entirely wasted : )

Fair enough- Titanic is much sharper on British politics than I am, but I'm fairly sure that it doesn't work that way in the UK. The only reward you get is that you have to have a deposit to stand for a seat, and if you get enough votes, you get that deposit back.

Generally, voting for a party outside of the big three is a bad idea. There are exceptions though- Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all have parties that have significant numbers of MPs.

I would have included them, but they tend to be very regional, and recent moves towards devolution have made them weaker forces within Parliament for many. Still- I'm an amateur in a lot of this. I'm just interested in what people think

wales/scotland have PR now - therein no vote can be said to be truly 'wasted'. even if you vote monster raving looney party.

btw - where's the 'anyone but tory' option? talk about snake oil salesman. cameron gives me the creeps, and i've seen shit that would make a whore blush

khazalid wrote:wales/scotland have PR now - therein no vote can be said to be truly 'wasted'. even if you vote monster raving looney party.

btw - where's the 'anyone but tory' option? talk about snake oil salesman. cameron gives me the creeps, and i've seen shit that would make a whore blush

It was tempting, but I wanted to at least try to make a poll that didn't come to:

a) Conservative

b) I'm not evil

Just to clarify for non-UK politics savvy peeps. Tory is the nickname for the Conservatives. Also- the Monster Raving Looney Party were an actual party. British politics is fun.

Why would parties like the British National Party and the UK Independence Party support withdrawal from the European Union?

I know it kills their potential support, but that's just their views. But can someone explain why such a stance is reasonable?


_______________________-
AND: Is this true??

For example, that the Health and Safety Executive had banned conkers in schools.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state#United_Kingdom

The link doesn't support what's stated though.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why would parties like the British National Party and the UK Independence Party support withdrawal from the European Union?

I know it kills their potential support, but that's just their views. But can someone explain why such a stance is reasonable?

Not being a big fan of either, I can only give a partisan analysis. Both parties are strongly nationalistic. They essentially advocate that being part of the EU weakens British identity.

UKIP argue more on the side of the EU being a dysfunctional body that seeks to impose laws on the UK. They are very right wing, but not nearly as much as the BNP. Much of their criticism of the EU is pretty sound to many in the UK, but their solution to it- complete withdrawl, is considered radical.

The BNP tend to argue more on the side of the preservation of British culture at the moment. This tends to slide into racial identity more often than not. That's there traditional stance- they have a fairly clear lineage back to British fascism, and they're trying to rebrand.

That's me being about as nice as I can be about those two parties. Either way- they essentially have a single message rather than a broad political platform.

In so many words, they're the assholes of the British Political Party spectrum, but maybe that's a bit harsh--and a bit weird for something to have two assholes.

Honestly, I'd like the Liberal Democrats in there because I'd like parties that are socially progressive, but exactly how are they in financial/economic terms?

Lib Dems have my vote.

Wont ever vote tory due to the milk thief and Labour have fucked this country worse in the last 4 years than anyone has in the last 400

BigBallinStalin wrote:In so many words, they're the assholes of the British Political Party spectrum, but maybe that's a bit harsh--and a bit weird for something to have two assholes.

Honestly, I'd like the Liberal Democrats in there because I'd like parties that are socially progressive, but exactly how are they in financial/economic terms?

Economically they're pretty centrist. Most of the policies on the economy proposed by the big three parties seem fairly similar to me. Everyone accepts that cuts have to be made. Labour are saying that they will protect important areas of public spending like the NHS, but they're not widely trusted at the moment. Conservatives claim the same, and say that they'll cut spending in other areas. Again, they're not widely trusted. Lib Dems claim something similar, but they're widely seen as being inexperienced.

In short, I honestly don't feel any of the major parties has a sound plan for the economy. Even the Lib Dems, who I support. All three parties have a fairly pragmatic approach to the economy. In general, the Lib Dems favour more of a reformist approach to things like banking regulation, and a slightly left wing approach to taxation- it should be more balanced, tax loopholes should be closed.

Everyone wants Liberals to win that I have spoken to,but they feel its a waisted vote.Liberals always get the most overrall votes.I'll simplify it a little.
Its not the peoples votes that count.The countries are divided into areas.Each area wins a seat.It makes no odds to them that one area has 2 million people living there and another area 2 thousand.
A seat is a bonus a person is a number within a big area.
So anyway I'd vote liberal.They cant do any worse then Labour and conservatives have done in my lifetime.

KoE_Sirius wrote:Everyone wants Liberals to win that I have spoken to,but they feel its a waisted vote.Liberals always get the most overrall votes.I'll simplify it a little.
Its not the peoples votes that count.The countries are divided into areas.Each area wins a seat.It makes no odds to them that one area has 2 million people living there and another area 2 thousand.
A seat is a bonus a person is a number within a big area.
So anyway I'd vote liberal.They cant do any worse then Labour and conservatives have done in my lifetime.

Ok- I don't know exactly what you're trying to say, but you're right about the system.

The UK runs a first "past the post" system. That's not a big deal for Americans that are reading this, but it matters if you have more than two major parties. Essentially it means that whichever party has the greatest share of the vote in any area will gain that seat. What it also means is that (let's assume three parties are running for every seat), that if 34% of the people in every seat voted for party A, with 33% for party B and C respectively, then Party A would have every seat in parliament with 66% of the country not wanting them to be there.

This is worth noting because a big part of the Liberal Democrat party has traditionally argued for a movement towards Proportional Representation. They've relaxed on the point recently, and it has it's flaws- it often leads towards weak coalitions. It would help the Lib Dems politically- they often gain huge numbers of votes nationwide that fail to translated into actual political power.

Hope that clears some stuff up.

I would vote for snp (scottish nationalist party) who would come under "other" but then I decided not to vote in this poll as I doubt I will in real life.

I used to be pro-voting but the more I think about it the less it makes sense.

pmchugh wrote:I would vote for snp (scottish nationalist party) who would come under "other" but then I decided not to vote in this poll as I doubt I will in real life.

I used to be pro-voting but the more I think about it the less it makes sense.

Yeah- I felt in two minds about including parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymri. In retrospect I think I should have added them, but I was thinking of the fact that they rarely field candidates outside of their respective areas. Likewise with Northern Irish parties. For most people they just wont be a choice, so I tried to go for the parties that were most prominent in every area.

Anyway- if anyone is still following this- certain parties have great strengths in specific areas. The SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymri in Wales, Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland (among several others). They don't tend to have representatives in elections outside of their areas, but locally they are very powerful and will trump bigger parties.

Symmetry wrote:

pmchugh wrote:I would vote for snp (scottish nationalist party) who would come under "other" but then I decided not to vote in this poll as I doubt I will in real life.

I used to be pro-voting but the more I think about it the less it makes sense.

Yeah- I felt in two minds about including parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymri. In retrospect I think I should have added them, but I was thinking of the fact that they rarely field candidates outside of their respective areas. Likewise with Northern Irish parties. For most people they just wont be a choice, so I tried to go for the parties that were most prominent in every area.

Anyway- if anyone is still following this- certain parties have great strengths in specific areas. The SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymri in Wales, Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland (among several others). They don't tend to have representatives in elections outside of their areas, but locally they are very powerful and will trump bigger parties.

If they're powerfully locally, what power do they actually hold in those areas? They're not being represented up top, so aren't they going to have to enact things that just get handed down from them?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

pmchugh wrote:I would vote for snp (scottish nationalist party) who would come under "other" but then I decided not to vote in this poll as I doubt I will in real life.

I used to be pro-voting but the more I think about it the less it makes sense.

Yeah- I felt in two minds about including parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymri. In retrospect I think I should have added them, but I was thinking of the fact that they rarely field candidates outside of their respective areas. Likewise with Northern Irish parties. For most people they just wont be a choice, so I tried to go for the parties that were most prominent in every area.

Anyway- if anyone is still following this- certain parties have great strengths in specific areas. The SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymri in Wales, Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland (among several others). They don't tend to have representatives in elections outside of their areas, but locally they are very powerful and will trump bigger parties.

If they're powerfully locally, what power do they actually hold in those areas? They're not being represented up top, so aren't they going to have to enact things that just get handed down from them?

I feel kind of bad about answering some of these questions, but I did start the thread and they are good questions.

Some of this is about the power of regional politics. It's sort of a protest vote. The acknowledgment that none of the main parties really represent an area. I can see where this might seem useless, but in Northern Ireland the election of Sinn Fein MPs who refused to take their seats in parliament became a powerful symbol of the NI public's refusal to accept British government.

Election of other MPs in local areas serves a similar role and pushes towards devolotion. In simpler terms- if, say Plaid Cymru are so dominant in Wales, but have little or no voice in parliament, should Wales have its own government?

I'll probably end up voting Labour. If not, I'll be voting Lib Dems or Green, but I could never vote Tory.

Labour almost lost me a little while back, at the beginning of the economic collapse and the whole Gurkha fiasco. However Brown and Darling have done very well since then and improved a great deal, whilst Cameron and Osbourne have not really changed too much. I really don't trust Osbourne, I think he just says what he thinks is the right thing and not what he really believes.

Although the economic plans are very thin from all 3 parties so far I think the Lib Dems are the strongest on banking reform so far, and are probably the only ones with the desire to increase the tax rates in a couple of years to help fight the structural deficit and out public debt. Also Labour have really pissed me off with their higher education cuts which (even though I'm graduating this year) still is one of the untouchable areas to me. As well as this I don't seriously believe that Labour are anywhere near committed to fighting the hard fight on climate change (I think I read that our CO2 output has increased since 1997), and their policies so far have been dreadful with the main impetus on green policies coming from the European Parliament.

For the Lib Dems, even though this sounds harsh, to me they will always be most effective out of government. If they get voted in or form a coalition I think they will be seen and act as one of the parties, rather as the outsider. As they are never seriously going to get in I like their policies a lot as they are more progressive and long term, rather then the PR policies of the main two parties. Also, the Lib Dems normally get hold of an issue well before either of the others (climate change, banking reform etc..) which brings it into the public domain, and if they were a serious contender I think they will try to stay more centrist and safe with their policies rather then branching out.

By the way, I did vote (for other) because I wanted to see the results.

I have no opinion one way or the other mainly because my knowledge of British politics, economy, foreign affairs, and people is nil. I can tell you a lot about their history, but current events? Nah. So, because I'm ignorant, I will not comment.

In related news, maybe you Brits should think about that last paragraph and apply it to the United States. Would solve a lot of angst for me.