London postal workers vote to suspend funds to Labour

[Big Daz]

Of course if the media focused on the other parties a bit more, people might realise that there is lots of choice and that the smaller parties have a wide range of interesting and radical policies.

For the green party this election is potentially a springboard to acheiving MP's in double figures at the 2014/2015 general election , they have a good chance of getting three MP's in 2010 which then gives a green voice in parliment.

Green party is allready very popular in some local council areas and that vote has been holding up and increasing year after year to the point the green party has its best ever chance of getting into westminster.

If people vote as suggested by Andy then we may have a parliment that is more representative of the opinon of the voters.

How often does the governemnt of the day command over 50% of the vote or even a % of the vote that matches with their % of MP's?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Dont forget the political fund is optional

Because of that could staunch Labour supporters (Labours Tankies perhaps) be biding their time and waiting for people who are fed up with labour to pull out of the PF - The reason I ask is because I am of the understanding that if you withdraw from the PF then you cannot vote on the disposal of the fund. Hopefully I have that wrong.

[Big Daz]

Dont forget the political fund is optional

Because of that could staunch Labour supporters (Labours Tankies perhaps) be biding their time and waiting for people who are fed up with labour to pull out of the PF - The reason I ask is because I am of the understanding that if you withdraw from the PF then you cannot vote on the disposal of the fund. Hopefully I have that wrong.

I assume that would be the case, but i havent come across anything offical as to who would or wouldnt get to vote.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Anyone would think there is some fundamental difference between these political parties. There isn't, there never was and it's unlikely there ever will be.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Bloody good post! But still we get hung up on a system that is corrupt before we even caste a vote1 Its called Government! Whats wrong with CHANGING the system the elite have forced on us for true democracy? So we we dont have Government but representitives that do as we wish rather than what fills their pockets? Until these problems are solved we will be no more than the ball in a pinball machine that bounces around scoring a bit here and there but will still end up the same. DEAD and buried so our kids can do the same whilst making the elite richer!

Also a good post!

[Tman]

Perhaps this section of my post will enlighten you (perhaps you should read posts properly, before criticising?):

I read it; I don't agree with it. Putting it plainly, it's meaningless. Now that's criticising...

[

color=#008000]The ONLY reason that we alternate between Labour and Conservative, is because there are so many people. Who just blindly accept the rhetoric, that if they don't vote for one, we'll end up with the other! It's a self fullfilling phrophecy! Think for yourselves, come Election time! Don't just "follow the Herd"!
[/color]
Please try to think for yourself once in a while. Instead of blindly following your particular Herd.

It's called Realism, Andy. Other parties (rightly or wrongly) don't attract enough support to reach the so-called "critical mass" required for their support to become big enough to ever form a government. Sure, hopers and dreamers can put the little mark besides the Green candidate etc as a gesture of support, but there's a long way for them to go before they achieve anything like the political stature to actually do anything. Some policies which are achievable and useful (as opposed to some which are fanciful and pie-in-the-sky) would help to attract some voters....

[BTW why do you keep saying "think for yourself" and all the time now? Are your points of view more valid or somehow correct than mine?]

The reason that none of the other Parties have posed a serious threat to either Labour or Conservatives. Is because people are afraid that if they don't vote for one, then the other will get in. That's the nature of a self fullfilling prophacy: If you believe it, it will happen. If you don't, it won't. Simples!

Perhaps you should also read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and this: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-self- ... ophecy.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This paragraph, from the second Link, sums it up perfectly:
Robert Merton, a 20th century sociologist, actually coined the term of self-fulfilling prophecy. In his definition, in the book Social Theory and Social Structure published in 1949, the prophecy or prediction is false but is made true by a person’s actions. In the modern sense the prophecy has neither false nor true value, but is merely a possibility that is made into probability by a person’s unconscious or conscious actions

Oh please. Not Wiki stuff about self-fulfilling prophecies, as if that somehow proves your point has value. I should imagine most on here are aware of this concept so don't need reminding, thanks.

[andy2007]

Why do you think I included the second link (which you probably didn't read)?
I included the Wikipedia link, because it's better laid out. But I also included one which is more detailed (and probably better researched too).

You say that you're a realist. Yet you deny the fact that there are so many people like you (by your own admission), who will only vote for one of 2 parties. That is how self fullfiling prophecies work: You make something (which otherwise wouldn't be) true, by your own blinkered actions. It has nothing to do with realism.

You also accuse me of thinking that my points are more valid than yours. But the fact is: That (again, by your own admission) you are failing to make a decision based on policies, but simply on rhetoric. So, yes. In this particular case. My views ARE more valid. Because I thought for myself, instead of blindly following others. Like I keep saying: Think for yourself. Please!

Does that mean that I think that my views are always more valid that yours (or anyone elses for that matter). No. Of course not. That would be ludicrous.

And why the obsession with the Greens?
Did you even LOOK at your Ballot Paper, last time?
Personally. I support the Green Party. But that doesn't mean that you, or anyone else should. Each person has the right to choose, whoever they think will best represent them, and their views. Millions died on the Battlefield, to give you that right. And yet, you choose not to excercise it.

Before you dismiss what I've told you about self fullfilling prophecies, as pointless. I suggest you do some research. So you know a bit about it, or at the very least, about general psychology, and/or Sociology. There have been countless studies, into the pack nature of crowds, for example. It's not the same thing of course. But there have also been several (but not as many) studies into self fullfilling prophacies. But just because the Human Brain has a pre-disposition to follow "the group". It doesn't mean that we should abandon our rights to think, and vote for ourselves. Of course, once a Democratic decision has taken place, we should follow the will of the majority (that IS what Democracy is based on, after all). But until the decision is made: We have the opportunity, and right. To express our views, regardless of what they are.

[Tman]

Thankfully we all have the right to vote for the party of our choice. Choosing that party (and wasting your vote) when it will have no chance of influencing the political process is another matter, and that's realism.

The UK is a two-party democracy (as are many others in the West which don't have PR) and probably always will be, thankfully.

{Unless you see the electorate vote splintered into three or even more limited-power groups as being somehow desirable. I don't}

[kingtubby]

Anyone would think there is some fundamental difference between these political parties. There isn't, there never was and it's unlikely there ever will be.

These days, voting in elections, I feel more like a shareholder voting for a board of directors than a citizen electing a representative.

[BELIAL]

Anyone would think there is some fundamental difference between these political parties. There isn't, there never was and it's unlikely there ever will be.

These days, voting in elections, I feel more like a shareholder voting for a board of directors than a citizen electing a representative.

Which colour party would you care to be shafted by for the next five years? Please X one box

[BELIAL]

The only real problem i see with anything is persuading the people that their own destiny lies with them and not some power crazed politian or banker that wants to rape their pockets and families.

Not to worry ,don't think you'll have to exhaust yourself doing persuading. Unemployment, poverty, food shortages and fuel famines will probably do the trick

[andy2007]

Thankfully we all have the right to vote for the party of our choice. Choosing that party (and wasting your vote) when it will have no chance of influencing the political process is another matter, and that's realism.

The UK is a two-party democracy (as are many others in the West which don't have PR) and probably always will be, thankfully.

{Unless you see the electorate vote splintered into three or even more limited-power groups as being somehow desirable. I don't}

Would I be wasting my vote, if everyone thought for themselves, rather than simply being led down the garden path like you (it's an observation, not intended to be an insult, before you start)?
We seem to be going over the same thing, time and again. But unless people stop reverting to "pack behaviour", and start acting as individuals, with a right to select whoever they believe will best represent them. We're going to be stuck in the same decline.

Can anyone remember when the Government REPRESENTED those who elected them?
I've read about times like that, in the History Books. But I've yet to see any evidence of it in my lifetime. I think Oliver Cromwell sumed it up well:
“you have been sat to long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, i say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go!.”

Addressing the rump parliament. April 1653.

And

“we declared our intentions to preserve monarchy, and they still are so, unless necessity enforce an alteration. It’s granted the king has broken his trust, yet you are fearful to declare you will make no further addresses. .....look on the people you represent, and break not your trust, and expose not the honest party of your kingdom, who have bled for you, and suffer not misery to fall upon them for want of courage and resolution in you, else the honest people may take such courses as nature dictates to them.”

Cromwell’s speech in the commons during the debate which preceeded the “vote of no addresses”, recorded in the diary of John Boys, MM for Kent.

[Tman]

Would I be wasting my vote, if everyone thought for themselves, rather than simply being led down the garden path like you (it's an observation, not intended to be an insult, before you start)?

You're being derogatory to people in general then? How do you know they haven't "thought for themselves" and decided to make it a vote which may count? Why do you assume you know more than them, and they're being "led down the garden path"? Do you know something millions of other voters don't know (as in this case, and reference to the Green party)? Too many assumptions.

Can anyone remember when the Government REPRESENTED those who elected them?

This doesn't mean much really. Do you mean when MPs REPRESENTED those who elected them?
My MP is extremely good. I'm happy with his actions to date, even though I never voted for him, and he's not in the party I'd choose. Is that any good for you?

I've read about times like that, in the History Books. But I've yet to see any evidence of it in my lifetime. I think Oliver Cromwell sumed it up well:

Maybe you should read up some more on Cromwell before you start quoting him. Just ask any passing Irishman what he thinks of Cromwell....

[andy2007]

I'm being derogatory to people who vote for Labour, because they think that if they don't, the Tories will get in. Or vice versa. If someone votes for one of those Parties, because they think that they are the best ones to represent them, then that's great. They've made an informed decision. But I'm tired of people failing to use their intelegence, come Election time. And why are you still so obsessed with The Green Party. I'm not trying to get others to vote the same way as me. There are several other Parties out there. Try looking at your Ballot Paper next time.

As with many other people in History. Cromwell was a nasty peice of work. But he was the one, who's largely responsible for us having our current form of Government. Which is why I quoted him. Who better to sum up the nature of Parliament, than someone who was heavily involved in creating it?

There are others, who have their dark side covered up quite well. For example: Winston Churchill was a member of the British Eugenics Society. Does that mean that he shouldn't be given credit for what he did for Britain in World War 2?
Of course not! True, he was a sick b*****d, for getting involved in Eugenics. But there's no denying that he was instrumental in fighting off the Nazis.

[Tman]

I'm being derogatory to people who vote for Labour, because they think that if they don't, the Tories will get in. Or vice versa. If someone votes for one of those Parties, because they think that they are the best ones to represent them, then that's great. They've made an informed decision. But I'm tired of people failing to use their intelegence, come Election time.

Ain't we all Andy, ain't we all?

And why are you still so obsessed with The Green Party.

Because if I mentioned some other minority party, the thread would change to "ahh, so that's who you really vote for" so I'm justing using the Greens as an example. Simple, eh?

I'm not trying to get others to vote the same way as me. There are several other Parties out there. Try looking at your Ballot Paper next time.

No Green party around here, or SNP, Plaid Cymru, SWP, BNP or any other bunch of no-hopers. Just the Big Two plus the little wannabes.
Oh yeah... ?

As with many other people in History. Cromwell was a nasty peice of work. But he was the one, who's largely responsible for us having our current form of Government. Which is why I quoted him. Who better to sum up the nature of Parliament, than someone who was heavily involved in creating it?

Stretching a point there, aren't you? He's often described as England's first and only dictator too, hardly the stuff of a free parliamentary democracy or someone to be quoted. The speech you quoted was written for an event in history, so you've taken it out of context and tried to use it as a critcism of our current form of democratic process; something for which it was never intended.

There are others, who have their dark side covered up quite well. For example: Winston Churchill was a member of the British Eugenics Society. Does that mean that he shouldn't be given credit for what he did for Britain in World War 2?
Of course not! True, he was a sick b*****d, for getting involved in Eugenics. But there's no denying that he was instrumental in fighting off the Nazis.

Yeah I know, Hitler loved his dogs, Stalin loved his people, and Pol Pot did a great fish curry too but does anyone quote them?