I am so hacked off with people saying they like the libdems but won't vote for them..(42 Posts)
because they have no chance of getting in!
if all you fuckers got your fingers out and did vote for them we'd have a libdem government!
they are the ONLY party with grown up policies for grown up intelligent people imho.
quite apart from the fact that they are the only party that challenged the legality of the iraq war.
Oh I'm used to being ignored nickel - 90% of what I say on MN gets ignored!
so what's the rest of you's excuse for not voting libdem then?
just wanted to add to my previous post - I don't want a hung parliment as such, but the polls are suggesting it may go that way, and I really don't want DC as my PM.
Its such a shame that UK politics is so limited in real choice. My old Bristol constituency nearly had a Green MP, but the vote was split with Respect, and as a result neither got in. At least with PR a better reflection of voter choice is seen in council seats etc. The flip side however is also seen - in Norway the Christian People's Party (far right conservative) are in and Nationalism gets a foot hold, but then thats democracy: a reflection on society, warts and all.
I don't know the answer - addressing voter apathy would make a huge improvement; we see more excitement about the US election than our own in many of my age group (understandable when its Obama, but Bush?!!)
I just want to keep my local surestart centre
I would vote libdem if I thought they would get in.
electra how can they possibly get in if thousands and thousands of voters think like you and don't vote for them?
it's a vicious circle.
You're right sophable, but how would we change the mentality of enough people to make a libdem victory possible? For me it comes most of all to not wanting a Tory government again.....and I want my vote to count against that.
But if I thought libdem could win I'd vote for them most definitely.
"how would we change the mentality of enough people to make a libdem victory possible?"
By taking part in the election campaign, no matter in how small a way. All parties rely on volunteers, but the Lib Dems in particular - success in a particular area is dependent on how effective a "ground war" is fought there. The reason the LDs' poll ratings go up during election campaigns is because the extra delivering/canvassing activity reminds people of their existence.
(apologies for being in such a recruiting sergeant mode, but it's true that you only get what you want if you make it happen...)
so how about changing your own mentality, electra?
"it's just a drop in the ocean but every ocean is made of millions of little drops"
that's how the campaigns for recycling, not wasting water, using less power, etc started.
people have to change their own minds.
if you think you'd like it if libdem gerts in, then you have to vote for them!
don't just sit there saying "but i can't because noone else is going to"
I will be voting LibDem
i always do
nickelbabe - I don't want the Tories to get in - that is my main concern...I make no apologies for that. You cannot change the world overnight
From a Nick Clegg email today:
"Almost 1 in 4 voters chose the Liberal Democrats at the last election. If that increased to 1 in 3, we could lead the next government."
Put like that, it sounds so easy... in practice, moving to a 33% share of the vote would be a pretty big achievement - but it's true: if you find that site (I can't remember what it's called) where you can input different vote percentages, you find that once the LDs reach a certain percentage of the vote, whole swathes of the country suddenly start turning yellow... the reason being that the LDs are in second place in so many constituencies.
There are lots of different kinds of hung parliament, of course - the Lib Dems won't automatically hold the balance of power in one, if their seats are fewer than the difference between the other two parties. (Admittedly this would mean a lot more minority parties getting more seats than they currently do.)
Its's interesting that they are always asked what they;d do in the event of a hung parliament, and yet the Tories and Labour are rarely, if ever, asked. Interesting window on the way the media perceive the choices to be made.
I know so many people who vote LibDem (or at least claim they do)....
DP says it's because we know a disproportionate number of middle class, guilt ridden, handwringers (and he includes myself, my parents and many of his friends in that damning statement!!!)
I don't suppose the'll sweep to victory, but it's worth remembering that, even without a hung parliament, LibDems hold a huge amount of political influence, if you include local politics and the national campaigns they have supported (like helping the Ghurkas).
My one year old has started campaigning early and is all ready for a spot of leafleting and canvasing
Good points, perhaps I will reassess my voting strategy.
Proportional representation - whoeever said turkey's don't vote for Xmas is right.
If there were a hung parliament and I was holding the balance of power, I would be demanding the adoption of some kind of system of PR as the price of my co-operation with either one side or the other. But UnquietDad is right - there are a lot of types of hung parliament scenarios
An interesting tangent as Sophable mentioned Iraq: Iraq currently has a kind of PR electoral system (party list), adopted post 2003 war on the advice of the UN. The UK supported this approach (to cut a long stort short because it didn't want to see one group gain overall control of the country). Anyway it begs the question - if we can recommend it for Iraq, why not here
Because proportional representation, while it look more democratic on paper, frequently leads to very small parties holding the balance of power.
What tends to happen is there is a proliferation of small parties, often gaining one or two seats. The major parties don't get enough seats for an overall majority, so it is these small, often single issue parties, that end up holding the bablance of power.
Israel is a good example, where the far right, orthodox parties hold enough seats to force concessions from the more moderate parties. They can just as easily withdraw their support if they don't get their way, leading to the govt losing it's majority and forcing either a re election or another scramble for concessions and power. Italy, until Beresconi, averaged a change of power every two years. Even NZ, which went over to mixed member proportional about 15 years ago has felt the disproportionate affect os small interest parties.
You end up with a voting system that is, in all probability, more democratic, but a system of governance that is even less.
Here is Anatole Kaletsky in the Times saying why a hung parliament might be a good thing
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.