INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

General election

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#61 Post by jaywhat » April 12th, 2010, 7:03 am

Latest post of the previous page:

I cannot believe my results :-
20% each for Labour, Green,Conservative, UKIP and Lib Dem

Kaoru
Posts: 26
Joined: April 13th, 2010, 2:02 am

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#62 Post by Kaoru » April 14th, 2010, 1:16 pm

Well I hope something similar is produced for voters in the Australian Federal Election later in the year too. It's a good idea.

If I were voting in the UK Election it seems that I should be voting for the Greens as I rated 75% with them and unbelievable (and ashamedly) 25% Conservative! (and that was for the environment policies?) Yikes!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#63 Post by Alan H » April 14th, 2010, 3:37 pm

Kaoru wrote:Well I hope something similar is produced for voters in the Australian Federal Election later in the year too. It's a good idea.
I'm not so sure it's a good idea. I tend to see it as a bit superficial. In some ways, its focus is too narrow and it could be that what isn't said directly in the words of policies is just as important. Even if it came out 100% Conservative for me, I'd still never vote for them. I think it boils down to a bit of 'gut feel' and a bit of looking at the bigger picture: I see myself as left of centre and that's not generally where I see the Tories on any policy, therefore, they will not get my vote even if I may agree with some of what they say their policies are.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Compassionist
Posts: 3511
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#64 Post by Compassionist » April 14th, 2010, 6:10 pm

I had 70% Green & 30% Lib Dem. :D

Kaoru
Posts: 26
Joined: April 13th, 2010, 2:02 am

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#65 Post by Kaoru » April 14th, 2010, 11:51 pm

Alan,

I think it's a good idea because a person who may have always voted say "Labor" may in fact realise that the things they more passionately believe in are supported by say the "greens" or vice versa. It might get those die-hard supporters of one party thinking that they are really voting against things that they want to see happen.

I realised a little while back, that rather than get over-frustrated at conservative attitudes, all I can do at the moment at least is to register vote with the party that best represents me. As a die-hard Labor voter here, I realised that I really should be voting for the Greens. It'll still be a vote for Labor 2 party preferred, but at least my vote will be more in line with what I believe. And if the Secular Party run candidates this time, I'll be voting for them.

But I think that website is a good way of at least making some people think about it a bit more.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#66 Post by Alan H » April 15th, 2010, 2:02 am

You may be right, and anything that makes voters think must be a good idea.

I love the idea of a Secular Party (but wish it wasn't necessary). Have they got much support?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Kaoru
Posts: 26
Joined: April 13th, 2010, 2:02 am

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#67 Post by Kaoru » April 15th, 2010, 3:20 am

Re: The Secular Party: I'm not sure. I only came across their website a little while back and my partner and I have been threatening to attend one of their meetings ever since. We'll get there one day I'm sure.

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#68 Post by jaywhat » April 15th, 2010, 7:59 am

If suppose I would not vote for the Greens because that would mean giving my Labour vote to the Tories.

Beki
Posts: 710
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 8:43 am

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#69 Post by Beki » April 15th, 2010, 9:23 pm

OMG I am actually a Labour party supporter and didn't realise it!! Never voted for them in my life. I've always voted Lib-Dem cos I like Ming Campbell my MP. There's no point voting labour here in NE Fife as it is a straight contest between the Lib-Dems and the Tories. And actually I selected more Tory policies than Lib Dem... hmmmm food for thought.

44% labour, 22% Tory, 22% Green and 11% UKIP (where did that one come from......?)

No Lib-Dem at all..... guess I'd better actually do some reading before May 6th. Sorry Ming!
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. - M Ghandi

Beki
Posts: 710
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 8:43 am

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#70 Post by Beki » April 15th, 2010, 9:25 pm

Bit crap that the SNP aren't on there though. I know that they are not relevant to you guys darn sarf, but they are the (almost) governing party up here in the Scottish Parliament so it's a bit naughty to exclude them. There should have been an option to say where you were voting so that you would have the policies of SNP and Plaid Cymry (oops spelling) included too.
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. - M Ghandi

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#71 Post by Maria Mac » April 15th, 2010, 9:54 pm

I'll move this to miscellaneous then merge it with existing thread on general election.

philbo
Posts: 591
Joined: December 18th, 2009, 3:09 pm

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#72 Post by philbo » April 16th, 2010, 11:38 am

Alan H wrote:I love the idea of a Secular Party (but wish it wasn't necessary).
I dislike the idea of a "Secular Party" in much the same way as I dislike the idea of any party with a religious affiliation. As soon as (for example) you hear a party in Iraq being described as "Shi'a" or "Sunni", you know that it means that what you have isn't democracy.

Inventing a political party that is defined by its lack of religion is pretty much as bad (even though I happen to agree with its religious stance). If you see what I mean.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: General election

#73 Post by Maria Mac » April 16th, 2010, 2:06 pm

UK voters, please go and vote in my poll in the Social Club. It's here.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: General election

#74 Post by Maria Mac » April 16th, 2010, 2:25 pm


User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#75 Post by Alan H » April 16th, 2010, 6:51 pm

philbo wrote:Inventing a political party that is defined by its lack of religion is pretty much as bad (even though I happen to agree with its religious stance). If you see what I mean.
But that's not what it is likely to mean: secular does not mean atheist or agnostic. They may well even be religious, but just want a state that doesn't interfere in religion and is not influenced by religion.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: General election

#76 Post by Maria Mac » April 17th, 2010, 12:53 pm

Here's a really fun site. Love the graphics.

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: General election

#77 Post by Fia » April 17th, 2010, 2:07 pm

Oooh, liked that one, Maria :laughter:
The terms and conditions of posting an idea are not available though, so I won't add one.. yet...

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: General election

#78 Post by Maria Mac » April 17th, 2010, 3:51 pm


Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: General election

#79 Post by Nick » April 17th, 2010, 8:57 pm

Done. You looked kinda pleased about that too. :laughter:

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 633
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Vote for policies . . .

#80 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » April 18th, 2010, 12:42 am

Alan H wrote:
philbo wrote:Inventing a political party that is defined by its lack of religion is pretty much as bad (even though I happen to agree with its religious stance). If you see what I mean.
But that's not what it is likely to mean: secular does not mean atheist or agnostic. They may well even be religious, but just want a state that doesn't interfere in religion and is not influenced by religion.
Well said, Alan H! The secular state is not hostile to religion or religious belief: it is indifferent.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

philbo
Posts: 591
Joined: December 18th, 2009, 3:09 pm

Re: General election

#81 Post by philbo » April 19th, 2010, 10:39 am

Not wanting a "Secular Party" does not mean not wanting a secular state: a single-issue pressure group has no relevance as a political party. Either it gets power, or it doesn't: if the former, then it forces through disestablishment to form a secular state.. then what? There's still a country to govern. If it never gets power... then what's the point?

If it's intending to be a drainer of votes from one or more other parties until they decide they have to make a concession to secularism (like UKIP does for the Tories, trying to force them into an ever more Europhobic stance), IMO you'd be far more efficient arguing directly rather than setting up a whole political party - e.g. setting up a secular camp within whichever of the main political parties will have you (possibly not the Conservatives, but there are definitely secular tendencies within Lib & Lab parties).

Post Reply