UK General election

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

You raise a good point here, and I'm inclined to agree.

I want to vote, I want to feel that there is a political party out there that can represent me, but I refuse to vote for 'the lesser of two evils' as my mum puts it.

But if you take that attitude then rather than voting for "the lesser of two evils" (which I take you to mean Labour) you are merely giving them licence to rule for another five years by contributing to the low turn-out.

If you were to use your vote, perhaps in a protest capacity, by voting for another party outside the "big" three then at least a dissenting "voice" would be heard.

I voted for the Rainbow Alliance in 1997 as I would rather vote for anybody than nobody.

Of course, the other major problem with a low turn-out is that it practically ensures that fraudulent postal votes will almost certainly effect the final election result.

What a stupid law that is. And how is it that it took the judicial system till one month before the General Election to declare that postal voting is unworkable, because it is so easy to cheat?

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Oliver

And how is it that it took the judicial system till one month before the General Election to declare that postal voting is unworkable, because it is so easy to cheat?

The amazing thing about that is you would hardly think it would take a geniues to work this out, would you?! Oh well, that's what I have come to exprect from Labour!!

[Alison]

A lot of people in my age group don't vote because they don't want or trust any of the candidates and don't see the point in voting for someone they neither want nor trust.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Oliver

But it is deeply politically incorrect to take a pop, in public, at a blind man, so nobody does.

I will. Blunkett's blindness is wholly incidental to his being the most authoritarian Home Secretary the country has had in all my life - and that includes Michael Howard. The fact that his authoritarian instincts were backed by an equally authoritarian Prime Minister who has single-handedly dismantled the concept of Cabinet government and replaced it with a presidency and teams of unelected (and possibly unelectable) special advisers was a disaster. Add to that the braying flocks of sheep who have occupied the Government benches for the last four years and a weak and hopelessly unco-ordinated bunch of asses on the Opposition benches and it's a wonder we're not all being locked up/served with ASBOs/forced to sign "acceptable behaviour contracts"/bar-coded or chip-implanted at birth/GPS-located every minute of the day/forced into the cinema for a daily Two Minutes' Hate. Orwell had it about right: Big Brother Blunkett should, but probably won't, be first to lose his seat.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I will. Orwell had it about right: Big Brother Blunkett should, but probably won't, be first to lose his seat.

With you all the way OF old chap.

[Alison]

It does seem slightly ironic that the unelected house actually cares more about our rights than the elected one.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I will. Blunkett's blindness is wholly incidental to his being the most authoritarian Home Secretary the country has had in all my life - and that includes Michael Howard.

Spot on - I saw him on Question Time last night, trying to cultivate a new, sensative side (like that fool Portillo), and I'm afraid I'm not buying it for a moment.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Alison

A lot of people in my age group don't vote because they don't want or trust any of the candidates and don't see the point in voting for someone they neither want nor trust.

I urge you to vote. If only a protest one. Vote for the Green party, the Christian party, the Monster Raving Loony party.
The Scottish National party, the Ulster Unionists, Plaid Cymru, the Independance for Somerset party.

Make a stand. Be a voting statistic. And I don't mean an abstention.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by RBLC

Kids not being allowed to win races at sports days.

Originally Posted by Ernest

This comes from the raft of EC regulations that are changing the way we live our daily lives.

Now, Ern, we know you don't go much on the EU, but that is tosh. I will withdraw this remark if you can point to the specific EU regulation you believe gives rise to this ludicrousness.

I live in the EU: our kids here compete to win prizes at all their sporting events. Same as we did when we were at school. Ask the UK teaching profession where this idea came from: it didn't start with the EU.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Ask the UK teaching profession where this idea came from: it didn't start with the EU.

Shirley Williams, Labour Education minister. She who begun the destruction of the Grammar schools, she who suggested non-competitive sport in schools.

She who lost out at an early age to Elizabeth Taylor in an audition for the part in the yucky children's movie National Velvet.

Uuuuuurrrr Shirley! Didn't you like being worse than somebody? Did you think you were a better actress than Elizabeth Taylor? Perhaps you were prettier and you should have had the chance to marry Richard Burton three times.

Skollob!