http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7372860.stm

I didn`t vote. They`re all sh*t <_<

Hopefully it`ll be a kick up the backside to Brown and his government. Doubt they`ll change though <_<

This isn't exactly good as the conservatives will gain

good thing is the high turnout - an essential in avoiding any extremist party is successfull

don't know if people's votes are all based on national issues

labour and the tories have each not done well on either local borough issues, city wide issues or national issues so I'd vote for either party in no more than two of the three theatres of politics.

Bloody Tories. <_<

Although Labour have forgotten who they are supposed to represent, the idea of the tories under Cameron is a nightmare. He is a right wing extremist pretending to be a nice middle of the road greeny.

Labour have forgotten the Michael Foot times. Even if Brown is good (which is not certain by any means!) he is NOT a vote winner. Like it or not, if you want to get people to vote for what you believe to be right, you have to have a convincing front man, and Brown is not it.

Got to agree with that.

I really would hate to see this place run by the Tories... *shudder*

But in order for Labour to get back to their core beliefs and those of its natural support, we may need a dose of the Tories.

The Tories are as pleasant as a dose of the chicken pox, but in order for things to improve in the long run, we may need to expose ourselves to a dose of them.

The strange things is the nearest to the 'core beliefs' is the Lib Dems who have taken over the Labour area, while the Labour people have taken the centre right soft Tory position. The Tories have gone for the trick of taking no position at all and relying on showing Brown to be dull and boring - the Tories are shallow, so no change in 10 years there, then.

Again, spot on, Coney

One thing I've noticed is that Labour's policies have actually been quite conservative (I'm talking about the political standpoint not the party) and hence I have recently equated Labour with conservatism, which is what the party apparently doesn't stand for.

Incidentally there's a book by Simon Jenkins called Thatcher and Sons which shows that since Thatcher, her successors, both Tory and Labour, have continued to push her agenda

gw is the home of the tory hatefest love in it seems - the majority of the country would appear to disagree with you guys

though to be honest I wouldn't want the tories running my Council (not decided on government though)

What does it matter that the majority disagrees with us? Something isn't right just because a large number of people think it is

just saying the majority of the country disagrees with you in the tory hatred

not saying that should define whether or not you support them but the phrases used by some on gw to describe the tories strike me as being somewhat hardened to the point of not unresponsive to anything the tories do

not being their spokesman and not saying I agree with everything they do just saying a more reasonable approach is needed

I disagree with their politics

Added to the fact that they feck up consistantly

44% of a 35% turnout is a majority? :blink:

ok, second biggest political party behind apathy

3rd place, because they didn't even get the majority of the minority.

they got more votes out of those who could be bothered to vote than anyone else, that makes them the majority party

Are you EVER consistent in what you say?

How does that sqaure with the nonsensical post above?

The majority of the voters would be over 50% - as the figures no matter how you choose to spin them are all under 50%, it would suggest that we (with the exception of you) are not in disagreement with how most of the country feels.

In fact we are pretty representative of the general feeling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7381633.stm

bnp have an assembly member! :fury:

Better than than the Tories.

:ilt:


;)

Don't think one person on the assembly is going to make any difference.

Is a little warning against voter apathy though.

You hit the nail on the head on the wake up call on voter apathy. But what are we to do (i voted btw) when the quality of the field is so poor?

not better than the tories, maybe better than the respect party though :good:

:1run:









seriously though, we all have a moral duty to vote, if we do not then extremist groups like the bnp could get in and every one of the 55% (london) who didn't vote would be partly responsible

We don't have a "moral responsibility" to vote.

Many people do not believe in democracy, and in many ways our form of democracy is so flawed, it can hardly be called that. The system is so open to abuse through gerrymandering, it is frightening, hence massive majorities when parties only receive 34% of the vote.

Having said that, in the London elections, if you get the most votes, you win, pretty simple.

the problem is we have proportional representation in London and so the bnp, by having 5% of the votes, got a seat

I'm starting to think proportional representation might have a role to play but only with fairer dividing lines between constituencies (spl) i. by headcount

also I think, nationally speaking, an english parliament is needed or a ban on scottish and welsh mps voting - we can't make decisions on welsh and scottish issues, therefore they shouldn't decide ours.

The constitutional position in this country is rediculous.

A true federal system like that of Canada would be much more effective, albeit with PR.

As for complaining that a truly democratic system that ensure representation matches the wishes of the voters in a fair and proportionate way - you are wrong.

True democracy means that there will be results you find unpalatable (and I do as well), but that doesn't mean that democracy should be "managed" to produce the results you would like.

The BNP won their seat fair and square and rather than to try and "manage" them out of government, it would be much more sensible to address the problems that caused them to get representation in the first place.

the bnp are correct when they say that immigration hasn't been managed properly - we now have ghettoised communities as a direct result

however their repulsive hatred basis is what makes them unworthy of government. I remember they had (and maybe still do have) a policy whereby all migrants would be sent back to their country of origin :lol: I laugh because I, like many, am the product of many nations, where would I go? (don't make any suggestions thank you very much <_< )

I think representative democracy (if not completely true) can involve an element of management, see Germany where proportional representation takes place but any party that vaguely or clearly backs facist ideology is outlawed.

I don't think we should go down the road of outlawing parties. Who would decide? And even if a party was facist, would it be the right thing to do?

Just because you ban a party, it doesn't mean the people or the problems go away.

Thank God no more Red Ken.


All we need now is to get rid of champagne socialists