Cantr II Discussion Forum

Just in case you didn't know...

I didn't know.

What does it mean?

Changing of the parliament if Im not mistaken. Has it been 4 years already or are they going for some extra time?

Yeh four years.

And nobody cares anyway. Blair has already lost.

Cookie Monster wrote:Yeh four years.

And nobody cares anyway. Blair has already lost.

Interesting view... I completely disagree. Blair will win, but stands no chance of surviving another 4 years.

I foresee a leadership challenge in the next 2 years...

Anyway, don't overestimate the Tories. Their policies are deeply flawed, and they are not tremendously popular. And seriously, never take any notice of the pre-election polls. They never reflect the truth.

I like Blair, but I am also pro-Bush and they kinda walk hand in hand. But if my boy GW can pull it off so can Tony.

I'm really not sure of the political landscape in Britain, but I had gotten the impression that the general populace of Britain was much less behind Blair on his forefront issues than we Americans are behind our beloved "Dubya."

Simply put... Blair has burned all his bridges. When he was first elected in 1997, he was popular. But over the past 8 years he has consistently neglected the general population and reneged on promises. The most obvious examples of this is the war in Iraq, which was very unpopular here, and the top-up fees issue. Not sure if you Americans know about the top-up fees thing... I'll explain at the end of my post. He is not well-liked in very many places in Britain now, not even in Labour strongholds.

But the issue is not so much about how popular Blair is, but how much of the propaganda pumped by the 2 main parties people decide to believe. And also, just how unpopular the Tories are. The Conservative party seem to think the best way forward for Britain is to return to the much more conservative 50s, led by a party which has done nothing to mend its vicious infighting and nothing to improve its deservedly poor image.



Note on top-up fees: The issue of university top-up fees was highly contraversial in the UK. The actual policy is irrelevant here, the point is that in 2001 Blair stated in the LAbour manifesto:

"We will not introduce top-up fees"

Three years later, he evidently decided that the public, being made up of total idiots as it is, wouldn't remember that or hate him if they did. So he introduced the bill, and managed to force it through, narrowly, by calling every labour MP to the vote. He even managed to survive a huge backbence rebellion without realising that perhaps the idea was unpopular...

I would vote for none of them. To be honest, as long as I get something out of the government, I am happy.

Whatever happens don't listen to the media, they're just milking the whole thing or they don't realise how big an issue the Iraq war really is going to be. If you're going to listen to anyone James Whale and the Independant will make sure of your vote, however now that it's been called they can't go into rant mode so its not much fn anymore.

Blair and Labour will win...

But, yes, Blair won't last much longer - a Labour government with him still as PM will swiftly loose credibility - if only because of his actions regarding Iraq... For most people, Labour are (only just) the lesser of two evils... And, no matter what they claim, the Lib Dems aren't a valid contest, not until we have proportional representation...

Even if the Lib Dems didn't have enough votes are you sure they are fit to run our country. I think not!

And if Labour win I'll eat my hat, and its a nice hat!

Kwinn (PB) wrote:I would vote for none of them. To be honest, as long as I get something out of the government, I am happy.

I really think there should be an option "none of the above" it would get more people to the polling stations, and you could leave it till the last minute to decide not to use your vote.


But we are also voting for our local MP in this election aren't we? So we shouldn't just look at the country party leader, but also the local representative and their stand on local issues.

No offence, but the local MP rarely has any influence in his local constituency. And unfortunately the way our system works it is naíve to think of it as anything except an election to determine the majority the winning party has.

And there is always the option to spoil your vote... tick all the boxes, none of the boxes, draw a smiley face... whatever. That is the same as a "none of the above" option.

The Surly Cantrian wrote:No offence, but the local MP rarely has any influence in his local constituency. And unfortunately the way our system works it is naíve to think of it as anything except an election to determine the majority the winning party has.

True - because everybody votes that way. If you vote for your local MP only, then it will go back to being sensible. Providing everyone else does too.

Our local MP at home is conservative. He's good, as far as I can tell. Might even vote for him. But not for his party; specifically for him.

And there is always the option to spoil your vote... tick all the boxes, none of the boxes, draw a smiley face... whatever. That is the same as a "none of the above" option.