Viewing Thread:
"Two Party System"

So, while reading some drivel in the Daily Mail written, I think, by Simon Heffer about the dangers of voting Lib Dem as a protest vote because this time they may actually be in with a tiny shot, I was thinking, would that be so bad?

While he was ready to try and make out a hung parliament or even, God forbid, a Lib Dem government, would be armageddon for the UK, I think it may be good for all concerned. And I mean regardless of policies, regardless of who you trust. Because at the moment, while we may not be as strangled of any choice as USA, we do have a two party system. No-one seems to take the Lib Dems seriously even though they can win seats. So what chance do yet smaller parties have of winning anything other than some protest votes?

What am I hoping for this election? Well, much as I wish it wasn't, a Lib Dem victory is unlikely. I'm hoping for a hung Parliament. I don't even necessarily think the Lib Dems are the best party, I mean I certainly think Charles Kennedy seems more genuine than our inanely grinning friend Mr. Blair or the constantly outraged Mr. Howard.

But the real problem here is that we have no diversity. Broadly, the Tories and Labour have the same policies. They both say they'll improve public services, both are saying there will be a fiar deal for 'hard-working families' and both seem to want a 'firm but fair' immigration policy... If this is our choice, what do we base it on? Who we trust? Neither of them frankly.

But the fact is, the Lib Dems are the only party aside from these two that have a chance of making a real impact. I think if the Lib Dems actually get some power this time, it might actually open peoples eyes a bit. People might stop and think, 'Hang on, a vote for a third party, a vote for any third party, isn't necessarily a wasted vote'.

I may want to wipe the smile off Tony's face, but I'm not going to be voting Conservative. I want to wipe the collective smiles' off the face's of both the 'main' political parties, and show them we are no longer satisfied with the complete lack of diversity and ideas this two party system has bred.

Kawada wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Heh. That'd be the same Lakers fan who believes everything he reads
> in the papers?
>
> Hmmm even though virtually all of them including the Guardian have
> run the same story highlighting the error he made in his speech? Then
> yes i am inclined to believe that good old Charles was unsure of his
> policy. Whether it was due to tiredness or actually not being sure of
> it.
>
> Unless you're saying he didn't make such an error and all the papers
> imagined it

But do you not realise that newspaper editors have their own political agenda, one in which the LibDems do not figure.

I think Blair has made a total mess of his second term, not even including Iraq, but the Tories have proved themselves seriously ineffectual as an opposition party.

With the LibDems the only party to oppose the Iraq invasion, and the only party now to even mention it, I'm quite disappointed they're not doing better in the polls.

It can only be good for democracy, and therefore for the ordinary ppeople of this country, to have a strong third party. Hopefully we may even get a couple of Green MPs in this time, that really would broaden and enrich our political spectrum.

Light wrote:
> I refer you to my comment about economics, it's complexity, and the
> cockwittery of politicians who claim simple fixes.

Ha ha. That's my new word of the week, 'cockwittery' lol!!

The tories do seem very worried about the lib dems this time round.

Mind you, there seemed to be a massive amount of anti-Bush momentum before the US election, but the voters still gave him a comfortable win.
So perhaps a notion of momentum is a pretty lame indicator.

No worries everyone gets like that on a Friday.

*scurries back off to the safety of the sport forum* :-D

Kawada wrote:

> And i was making a light hearted remark on old Charlie and his little
> slip. Which he does seem to have made. If it came across as dismissing
> the entire party and their policies on the whole it wasn't meant to.

Were you?

Ah.

B*gger.

Sorry.
>
> As you have said i often don't take things seriously and most of my
> comments are tounge in cheek, and my apologies if i didn't make my
> original message clearer

Nah, no need for apologies; just as much down to me being all Friday-ed out.

Light wrote:
> I'm saying he made a simple slip; give
> him grief for it by all means. Dismissing the whole party for
> it...well, that strikes me as a little extreme.


And i was making a light hearted remark on old Charlie and his little slip. Which he does seem to have made. If it came across as dismissing the entire party and their policies on the whole it wasn't meant to.

As you have said i often don't take things seriously and most of my comments are tounge in cheek, and my apologies if i didn't make my original message clearer

Kawada wrote:

> Hmmm even though virtually all of them including the Guardian have
> run the same story highlighting the error he made in his speech? Then
> yes i am inclined to believe that good old Charles was unsure of his
> policy. Whether it was due to tiredness or actually not being sure of
> it.

I refer you to my comment about economics, it's complexity, and the cockwittery of politicians who claim simple fixes.
>
> Unless you're saying he didn't make such an error and all the papers
> imagined it


ooooOOOOOOoooooo....get you. I'm saying he made a simple slip; give him grief for it by all means. Dismissing the whole party for it...well, that strikes me as a little extreme.
>
> Plus i'm not quite sure where on earth me supporting a basketball
> team comes into it and deserves a mention

It's called "a joke". Jeez, when did you start taking yourself so seriously?

Light wrote:
> Heh. That'd be the same Lakers fan who believes everything he reads
> in the papers?

Hmmm even though virtually all of them including the Guardian have run the same story highlighting the error he made in his speech? Then yes i am inclined to believe that good old Charles was unsure of his policy. Whether it was due to tiredness or actually not being sure of it.

Unless you're saying he didn't make such an error and all the papers imagined it

Plus i'm not quite sure where on earth me supporting a basketball team comes into it and deserves a mention

Kawada wrote:
> That'd be the same Lib Dems whose leader doesn't even know his own
> parties tax policy and how it works.


Heh. That'd be the same Lakers fan who believes everything he reads in the papers?


Point is, economics is complex. Shouldn't one be more suspicious of anyone who claims to have simple economic answers?