The Ranting Room

Exactly, Laplace, that's one of the points of my rant.

Although it seems there were staunch Labour votes who changed their stance too.  Most staunch voters of any government I've met are passionate about it.  They don't just vote a different way when they don't like something.

So if I follow your thread, you find it astonishing that citizens of a democracy would base their decision of who to vote on who they don't like ... please remind you-selves (sic) that most parties are voted "out" of power, not in. In effect, once I'm tired of the current government, whether because it's run its' course, scandals, failures, ineptness etc; I will vote for another party. Usually in many democracies (no debate here as to whether that is a failing), that means voting for the other party where only two major parties exist. 

In Britain though, there tends be a strong support for each party.  Most Conservative voters will likely never vote for the opposition, however bad their own leadership is.  It is not good form.  You are a Tory for life.

The same applies for Labour (or New Labour) voters, who remember the Conservative years and do not want to return back to those times.  The problem is though, Conservatives are thicker-skinned, whilst unfortunately, Labour supporters are not showing themselves to be.

So I disagree with your comments mostly.  Some people do vote like you do but in the case of Labour, they'd rather abstain from voting, than vote for the Conservatives.  The Conservatives vote for their own party, however appalling it is.

You have also missed my main point also.  Maybe I just did not word it correctly, oh well.  I am not repeating it.

OK. Can't restrain myself.

James wrote: In Britain though, there tends be a strong support for each party.  Most Conservative voters will likely never vote for the opposition, however bad their own leadership is.  It is not good form.  You are a Tory for life. The same applies for Labour (or New Labour) voters, who remember the Conservative years and do not want to return back to those times.  The problem is though, Conservatives are thicker-skinned, whilst unfortunately, Labour supporters are not showing themselves to be. So I disagree with your comments mostly.  Some people do vote like you do but in the case of Labour, they'd rather abstain from voting, than vote for the Conservatives.  The Conservatives vote for their own party, however appalling it is.

Disagree on the strong support. I think the number of people voting for a party because it's that party has been going down steadily since the 80s. This is somewhat evidenced by the dramatic swings in popular opinion both around '97 and today. Again, with Kinnock's Labour in '92, the Conservatives won despite opinion polls. If the support had been so firmly grounded, that wouldn't have happened.

Never seen either party's voters as especially thick-skinned or determined. With people my age, at least, I don't really see them being naturally inclined either way. I'm not very impressed with either party, but Brown's Labour have been responsible for a lot of blunders, and this has been picked up on viciously by the press. I know plenty of people, both of my generation and the previous one, who have voted Labour in our constituency because they like the MP, even if they prefer the Conservative party.

It's not so much this as that people have been prompted to dislike or be sick of labour by the press - democracy sounds neato but votes are largely decided by the most popular newspapers.

The popular press (and opinion polls) loved Brown back in September. Following the Conservative party conference, and their shock inheritance tax threshold goes to £1M announcement, that completely changed. This didn't happen because the press wanted it to. The conservatives have definitely sharpened up, and Labour's various bunglings have not been helping them at all.

The only people who are screwed over by the press are the Lib Dems.

debrewguy wrote: I'm sure serious cases can be made for ulterior political motives for many of the Big Media conglomerates. But to tell a fellow citizen that basing his vote on what his favourite newspaper says is stupid or that they should disregard said paper's recommendation sounds like you're questioning that person's intelligence & freedom of choice. I don't like Fox network's slant on the news. I rarely see the liberal leftist agenda that many American conservatives claim is rampant in media. But if you watch Fox & agree with their point of view, isn't it logical that you would agree with their recommendations come election time. Our recent municipal election stirred up a mini tempest. It seems that some who supported losing candidates believed that a newspaper or any other media outlet, for that matter, should not mention the candidate(s) that they support. As if their fellow citizens only saw the name, but not the reasons why the paper in question supported one candidate over another. Far too many of the "educated" classes think they know better. Far too many times history has shown us that the intelligentsia is more dangerous than the so called ignorant masses. Give me a simple common sensical decent manager of a Prime Minister or President, and I'm happy. Give me big plans, rainbow coloured dreams, and ever confident easy answers to difficult problems and you lose me.

The problem with mass media is that it tends to put slants on any and all stories to support their own views. When this happens it becomes increasingly difficult for someone to make an informed opinion because usually they arent getting all the facts, and those they are gettingcould very well have been misrepresented quite badly.

We tried a while ago, but the bloody Italian builders buggered off before they'd finished it!

Relayer09 wrote: Political parties, what a load a festering foul smelling pig vomit those are.

Don't hold back - tell us what you really think of them...

Relayer09 wrote: Why is it that if you dislike a certain canidate then people automatically assume you're affiliated with the opposing party?

Relayer09 wrote: who the hell ever told these people who pretend to be other people for a living (actors & celebrities) that they have some inane insight into the grand scheme of world politics?

Don't forget musicians:



er!   

Man Erg wrote: ^^^ Is G.W. a musician?

....No.

Silly me. I forgot that he is one of the world's foremost air flute players

James wrote: In Britain though, there tends be a strong support for each party.  Most Conservative voters will likely never vote for the opposition, however bad their own leadership is.  It is not good form.  You are a Tory for life.The same applies for Labour (or New Labour) voters, who remember the Conservative years and do not want to return back to those times.  The problem is though, Conservatives are thicker-skinned, whilst unfortunately, Labour supporters are not showing themselves to be.So I disagree with your comments mostly.  Some people do vote like you do but in the case of Labour, they'd rather abstain from voting, than vote for the Conservatives.  The Conservatives vote for their own party, however appalling it is.You have also missed my main point also.  Maybe I just did not word it correctly, oh well.  I am not repeating it.

James, 'NuLab' gained a lot of votes from former Tory supporters in 1997. Thats how they achieved such a huge landslide in that election. Prior to that we even saw Tory MPs defecting to Labour, as was the case with Alan Howarth.

How did Labour do this? By becoming a more electable Conseravtive party. The 'New Labour' Team, comprised of the likes of Peter Mandelson et al, were very shrewd. They had been watching the Tories every move since the mid 80's, and Thatcher being replaced by Major was a God send for them. With inflation running at 15%, the housing market in freefall, and an un-inspiring PM, the Tories were on the way out. Blair had wanted that job since the early 80's, and as MP for Beaconsfield had talked of the need for the Labour party to 'modernise' For New Labour, this meant abolishing 'Clause 4' of their constitution which committed the party to public ownership of utilities, railways etc. Of course the Tories had privatised everything, and the cost of re-nationalisation would have bankrupted the country. This is how the Tories left their legacy behind. They knew that any party that replaced them would have to continue governing the country with a Tory economic agenda. Very clever on their part!

Anyway, it's gone full circle now. The charismatic leader that was Blair, has been replaced with Gordon Brown (the labour parties answer to John Major) and lo and behold their ratings are plummeting. It;s time to prepare for another round of Tory government, but this time, I would bet a lot of money on their being very little noticible difference from what went before.

It's a shame about Gwyneth Dunwoody, but New Labour have run their course, and people invariably vote on national issues at all elections. It's perceived to be the best way to kick a party in the nuts when they have screwed up on something big. What constitutes a screw up, is of course subjective, but for many people, Iraq, ill managed immigration policy, lies, cash for honours, insane beaurocracy, failing on crime, robbing the poor to pay the rich etc doesn't go down very well. If anyone thinks the Tories will play the game any differently, however, they are dreaming, in my humble opinion.