|
U-Know! Forum » A vote for Clegg = a vote against Murdoch? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
|
Kilgore Trout 95 posts |
Apr 19, 2010, 09:44
|
||
|
I must confess to being pretty baffled by all the 'Clegg is Christ' talk, which seems to have been caused primarily by his ability to stare... directly... down... the... lens. This ain't the 'X-Factor' after all. Having said that, this caught my eye. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem If there proves to be some substance to the party's policies (and if Cameron and Brown don't scaremonger the life out of them in the next debate), then this could be interesting - a boost in representation for the 'centre-left' (relatively speaking) sounds like progress in my book. After all, the past few years have been very damaging to the established order of things.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 19, 2010, 15:28
|
||
|
The LibDem surge is tilting the field hugely, it seems. Polls say it's wide open now. About 32% Tory, 30% LibDem, 28% Labour. The Tories got 31% in their collapse at the 1997 election. Labour were on 26% when Michael Foot resigned in 1983. Of course, the Labour and Tory votes are geographically concentrated, so the LibDems would still be 3rd in parliament, but it's changing the prosepcts for a hung parliament. And it's making Cameron distinguish himself from LibDems, so he's habing to drop the touchy-feely shit and talk about the more keystered Tory policies from further right. The one I've loved today is Cameron attacking the LibDems saying that a vote for them would let Labour in. First up, it depends what the two-horse race is where you are. In some places the LibDems aren't the no-hopers. If you live in, say, Southport, where it's LibDem v Tory, it's a vote for Labour that's a waste of time and might let LibDem or Tory in. It highlights the failings of the first past the post system, that it doesn't work if more than two people are standing. The fucking gall of Cameron! Warning us of the unfairness of first past the post when he's actively opposed changes to a more democratic system, pretending it's somehow democratic to have an unfair system that forces you to vote tactically for poeple you hate. His stance is actually a big advert to vote *for* the LibDems and their policy of electoral reform. Incidentally, Labour have promised a referendum on electoral reform if they get back in. Mind you, it was one of their key manifesto pledges in 1997, the ones where Blair said 'this is my covenant with the British people, judge me on it'. Still, I suppose if this time they end up in coalition with the LibDems they'll have to do it.
|
|||
|
Kilgore Trout 95 posts |
Edited Apr 20, 2010, 10:44
Apr 20, 2010, 10:42
|
||
|
Totally agree, the first-past-the-post system is a joke, as are Cameron's stance and Labour's complete lack of genuine interest in changing it (couldn't imagine why). If Labour come third on percentage vote and still come out on top for number of seats, there will surely be no way of avoiding a pretty major revamp. Some kind of proportional representation is needed (at very least in an elected upper chamber) to stop people being turned off for good. There is something distinctly dispiriting about turning up at the polling station and voting against your instincts. Lib Dems are a non-entity in my constituency (unless something major happens) plus there's no Green candidate (the only minor parties we get are dullards like UKIP, English Democrats etc), so i'm pretty much forced to go tactical with Labour despite everything. Otherwise we get none other than GMTV's very own Esther McVey as the Tory candidate, who appears, i'm sad to say, to be a shoe-in following boundary changes. Here's hoping the Lib Dems get a boost in representation come May 6th - i'd personally also like to see the Greens get their first seat and gradually build up a decent showing over the next few years. What a shame i can't vote for either of them!
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 20, 2010, 11:50
|
||
|
Kilgore Trout wrote: If Labour come third on percentage vote and still come out on top for number of seats, there will surely be no way of avoiding a pretty major revamp. Especially if there's a hung parliament and it's a coalition with the LibDems who'll force the issue. A thought on the article about Murdoch you linked to: It's basic premise is that the LibDems are free from the taint of the Murdoch and media elite, so by impication they'd be a fresh form of government. Yet the piece makes clear that the media ignore them cos they want to cosy up to whoever's in power. As soon as the LibDems - or anyone else - got into power the media scum (and sundry other corporate powers) would be all over them. And, unused to it, they may well make naive easy prey for greater and worse influence than is presently held over Labour and the Tories.
|
|||
|
Kilgore Trout 95 posts |
Apr 20, 2010, 13:06
|
||
|
Yeah, this would seem to be their only chance to portray themselves as relatively untainted 'outsider' figures - i imagine they couldn't remain entirely free from Murdoch's tentacles once they'd found themselves in a position of real influence. In summary, it's a bloody mess!
|
| U-Know! Forum Index |
