would you ever vote conservative?

  • Thread starter simon silverdollar
  • Start date

IdleRich

IdleRich
So are you talking about how we should have voted in the past or how we should vote in the future? I really think that the Tories would have been at least as gung-ho as Labour over Iraq and ended up being as complicit in any warcrimes. That sounds as though I am judging them without giving them a chance but their rhetoric hasn't lead me to believe that they would have acted any differently.
In the next election I'm not sure how I will vote, most likely Lib Dem to be honest. I don't like Labour's foreign policy and I don't think that I would like the Tory version either. I know pretty much for definite that I will hate the Tories on domestic policy but I don't really like what we have much. Then again Lib Dem would be a wasted vote, it's a tricky one.
 
D

droid

Guest
In the future I suppose - I would have voted Labour and kicked Major out as well, but that was before we knew what we now know...

I can see that theres no real or easy alternative - but does that justify voting them back in? They're bathed in blood - and history has a way (however unfair) of tarring populations with the same brush as their governments in cases like this.

Im not trying to preach here - I sympathise with your position, and dont really know who Id vote for if I was in your shoes - but one thing I do know is that Blair is a liar and a mass murderer, and theres absolutely no way Id ever vote for him or any of the cowards that supported his crimes... they should be on trial - not ruling your country.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Im not trying to preach here"
Don't worry, I'm interested to hear what you have to say. We have a slightly different position but it's amongst the mildest arguments I've ever had.
To summarise what I think and answer the original question about voting Tory; in general I dislike the Tories but I wouldn't rule them out for ever. At present they still not attractive to me and crucially don't differ from Labour on the things that annoy me the most. I'm fed up with the Labour Government and I agree with you that Tony Blair and co have led the country in to an illegal war using lies - pretty much the worst action a government can take. Not happy with either of those leaves me Lib Dems who are marginally more attractive to me but have less chance of getting in. How about the Greens? More attractive but less chance and so and so on. I think that you are saying that you want Labour out at any cost so would vote Tory, is that right? It's Hobson's choice anyway.
It's no wonder that so many people are not interested in mainstream politics.
 
D

droid

Guest
I guess Im just very aware of how easy it is to sermonise fom the sidelines. The shower of pricks who lord over us here are in it up to their necks as well with Shannon.

Independents or the Greens. Has to be. Its not throwing a vote away - even if your party doesnt get in, enough votes will lay the foundation for its future success, and may force Labour to change some of their policies.

Failing that - burn it all down? Starting with Blair's spare houses :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IdleRich

IdleRich
I think that you're right - a Green vote means something even if it only raises consciousness in some of the mainstream parties, and could build for the future.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
I voted green for ages.

There's big chunks of their platform that I think is fab, but plenty that I think is naieve nonsense.

And the guy they put up as the Nether Edge candidate last time was just a totally humourless uber-nerd...
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
2stepfan said:
I voted green for ages

me too. i never used to vote at all, until i met my current girlfriend who used to harangue me about it. greens are the least worse option, but we need PR.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"but we need PR."
Do you really think that this would change things for the better? I'm not saying that I'm not willing to be convinced or that I don't think that there is something wrong with the present system but I'd like to hear some good arguments for why this would improve matters.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
2stepfan said:
I voted green for ages.

There's big chunks of their platform that I think is fab, but plenty that I think is naieve nonsense.
They're a bit kneejerk anti-science for my tastes - I'm all in favour of critically examining the claims of scientists (and more to the point, of people who make statements and policies allegedly based on the claims of scientists) in the light of their motivations and so on, but I draw the line at intrinsically distrusting anything done by anyone in a white coat.

On the other hand, I'm fully in favour of the 'wasted' vote for a single issue party - in a situation where politicians are chasing every vote (provided it happens to be in a marginal constituency, of course), a 'wasted' vote is a message that if they want your vote they're going to have to significantly alter their position on the relevant issues. This is arguably a more effective use of the vote than helping to replace one bunch of corrupt bloodthirsty control freaks with another...
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
IdleRich said:
Do you really think that this would change things for the better?

too right!
i want my vote to count- the first past the post system discards all votes not for winning candidate

depending on which chart you look at between 21.6- 35.3% of the electorate voted for labour in the last election but they still have the majority of the seats in parliament (356 seats), whereas 1 % of people voted green yet they get no seats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

system is fcuked and fundamentally undemocratic.
 
D

droid

Guest
matt b said:
too right!
i want my vote to count- the first past the post system discards all votes not for winning candidate

depending on which chart you look at between 21.6- 35.3% of the electorate voted for labour in the last election but they still have the majority of the seats in parliament (356 seats), whereas 1 % of people voted green yet they get no seats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

system is fcuked and fundamentally undemocratic.

Then theres the whole '4 year dictatorship' thing, illustrated perfectly by Blairs ignoring of clearly articulated public opinion.

On second thoughts, lets not go there... :D
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
droid said:
Then theres the whole '4 year dictatorship' thing, illustrated perfectly by Blairs ignoring of clearly articulated public opinion.

tony always says 'we are simply putting our manifesto into effect.' etc. then goes off and does loads of stuff he's never mentioned before. the twat.

11 crosses in a lifetime is not a democracy etc.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I'm fully in favour of the 'wasted' vote for a single issue party - in a situation where politicians are chasing every vote (provided it happens to be in a marginal constituency, of course), a 'wasted' vote is a message that if they want your vote they're going to have to significantly alter their position on the relevant issues. "
The point is that a lot of constituencies aren't marginal so this doesn't work.

"too right!
i want my vote to count- the first past the post system discards all votes not for winning candidate

depending on which chart you look at between 21.6- 35.3% of the electorate voted for labour in the last election but they still have the majority of the seats in parliament (356 seats), whereas 1 % of people voted green yet they get no seats."
Sure, I understand all that and even that the UK system doesn't work but I'm not sure that systems elsewhere work any better. There are several other proposals, is PR definitely the best? I thought that the main problem with PR is that because everyone is represented and no-one (necessarily) has a majority nothing gets done. On second thoughts maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing...
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
(P.S. - I've not been able to get online all day, but just wanted to drop this in - last time the UK had ID cards, after WWII, it was Conservative government that revoked them. OK, carry on... :) )
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
bassnation said:
at face value maybe - but the real picture is more complex. don't you remember the back to basics campaigns, the attacks on single mothers? that doesn't suggest a party that is dedicated to personal freedom and the individual.

on the authoritarian front, in thatchers reign, to bring up just one example, i remember miners getting their heads stoved in by the police. not the first time they have been overtly politicised to crush a labour movement but certainly marked a new phase in contemporary times, and has only increased over the years.

thing is, its easy to mix up left and right with liberal and authoratarian when they are different things. its perfectly possible to have libertarian left as long as your prepared to knit your own muesili.

if it sounds like i'm defending labour, i'm not. i hate all of them equally.

BIG xpost, but I just want to answer some of this.

Yes, absolutely - but you said it, the picture is more complex. Back to basics, the CJA (my first protest march was against that), was all bad. Definitely. But I don't think they are representative of conservatism in general, even if they did come to characterise the party in a particularly ugly way during the 80s and 90s. One of the key things that opens me up to the possibilty of voting Tory next time around is that I do think the party is coming to address this unpleasant aspect of its history. Cameron's Tories are not the same as Thatcher's and Major's - you know this because Thatcher's and Major's Tories would have voted Davis or, worse, Fox as leader - just as Blair's Labour isn't Kinnock's.
 
D

droid

Guest
BUN IT DOWN! MORE FIYAH!!!
icon_torch.gif
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
Yeah, John Redwood says something stupid shocker, while the Shadow Environment Secretary (Peter Ainsworth, a man I do trust), who is actually in charge of Conservative policy on the environment, says something sensible. The party's changing, there are bound to be disagreements but I don't honestly think Redwood's opinion is going to be taken terribly seriously, by the party or by voters.

Jackson may have a point about the European People's Party, but I don't know enough about the European Parliament to comment. The fact is that the environment is a massive issue that has only been a serious concern of politicians for the last few years, so figuring out how to incorporate it into broader policy is going to be tricky. I'm glad he's being made aware of the challenges.
 
Top