There's about to be a general election in the UK

General chitchat, advertisements for other services, and other non-Cantr-related topics

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

User avatar
formerly known as hf
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: UK

There's about to be a general election in the UK

Postby formerly known as hf » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:02 am

Just in case you didn't know...
Whoever you vote for.

The government wins.
User avatar
Peanut
Posts: 1155
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:01 pm

Postby Peanut » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:22 am

I didn't know.

What does it mean?
User avatar
TatteredShoeLace
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:50 am

Postby TatteredShoeLace » Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:57 pm

Changing of the parliament if Im not mistaken. Has it been 4 years already or are they going for some extra time?
Cookie
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:51 am
Location: NE & NW England

Postby Cookie » Fri Apr 08, 2005 3:56 pm

Yeh four years.

And nobody cares anyway. Blair has already lost.
User avatar
Surly
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Surly » Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:14 pm

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.
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
User avatar
TatteredShoeLace
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:50 am

Postby TatteredShoeLace » Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:25 pm

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.
User avatar
AoM
Posts: 1806
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:52 am
Location: Right where I want to be.

Postby AoM » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:20 pm

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."
User avatar
Surly
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Surly » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:30 pm

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.

:roll:

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...
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
Ash
Posts: 693
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 8:15 pm
Location: England

Postby Ash » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:59 pm

I would vote for none of them. To be honest, as long as I get something out of the government, I am happy.
Image
Cookie
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:51 am
Location: NE & NW England

Postby Cookie » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:45 pm

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.
User avatar
formerly known as hf
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: UK

Postby formerly known as hf » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:44 pm

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...
Whoever you vote for.



The government wins.
Cookie
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:51 am
Location: NE & NW England

Postby Cookie » Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:07 am

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!
Gregory
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:02 am

Postby Gregory » Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:01 pm

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.
From Gregory
Currently an Ex-Cantr II player (unless I forget to update my sig)
User avatar
Surly
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Surly » Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:13 pm

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.
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
Revanael
Posts: 1555
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 7:15 pm

Postby Revanael » Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:24 am

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.

Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest