Poll - Which UK political party would you vote for?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

Poll question: Poll - Which UK political party would you vote for?

http://www.labour.org.uk

http://www.libdems.org.uk

http://www.greenparty.org.uk

http://www.sinnfein.ie
Irish Nationalist

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org
as there are so many various socialist parties and this successful Scottish party is the most successful and can represent a vote for another socialist group

http://www.snp.org
Social Democratic Scottish Nationalists

http://www.plaidcymru.org
Welsh Nationalists

Monster Raving Loony Party
http://www.omrlp.com

http://www.sdlp.ie
Social Democratic Irish Nationalists

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Let me guess, SLB

you're the Monster Raving Loony supporter ...

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. It is very tempting. I could vote for all of the parties on the list,

Although one would need some major work done before I'd touch it.

On edit - Forget that, Labour's too far gone to be recovered, sadly.

[T_i_B]

We are ALL loonies at heart Muriel :-)

Although I like the look of the Lib Dems too!

[T_i_B]

5. We are ALL loonies at heart Muriel :-)

Although I like the look of the Lib Dems too!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

12. You know Lord David Sutch was his legal name?

Nutter.

[Rationality]

3. [self-deleted]

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. I don't see the comparison, please elaborate. I'm intrigued.

[Rationality]

6. [self-deleted]

[Screaming Lord Byron]

7. Doesn't seem right to me. I'd consider them slightly left of centre.

A big chunk of them, including party leader Charlie Kennedy are former members of the Social Democratic Party.

[Rationality]

9. Left of center for US/Canadian policy?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

16. I'd say they were Trudeau-era Liberals, or leftish Democrats.

[Rationality]

17. hmm..

Either way, I was proven wrong so I'm stepping out of this...

[Screaming Lord Byron]

18. don't worry, i've made worse mistakes.

I did just announce I was racist this morning, after all.

[cprise]

11. Converts

As for DUers, most seem to fall for it every time... Say "FREEDOM" a lot and they forget you're not talking about corporate/capitalist freedom from responsibility.

It's the same old Libertarian / Republican trick used here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. I did see a version which gave individual UK politicians

a rating, and Charles Kennedy ended up to the left of the dividing economic left/right line, but www.politicalcompass.org currently puts the party to the right - roughly below (ie more libertarian, but the same left/right) as Dean or Clark - and left of New Labour.

It's all a matter of opinion, of course. The Lib Dems aren't very left wing - they're not calling for nationalisation of much (perhaps the railways?), and are generally free trade (they practically invented it). They are keen on international development aid, though, and historically did introduce things like old age pensions to the UK; and favour a higher top rate of tax, and local income tax to be more progressive than the council tax. I think I'd agree with you, SLB, that they're centre or slightly left, economically. Closer to Kucinich than to the Libertarians, I'd have said.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

26. Yeah, I am considerably more keen on Charlie than his party.

[mdguss]

8. I'd Vote Tory:

Labour has really been acting like Torries. They have been raising fees and especially the British version of the property tax (they call it council tax).

The Torries aren't that bad: they support national healthcare, but want the money to be spent wisely. I think there's almost no difference between Labour and Conservative. Mise well give somebody else a chance. But then again, I like Tony Blair more than I like Michael Howard--who is a bit pompass for my taste.

I wouldn't vote for the Lib Dems because I think that they want to tax the crap out of everything. They come up with nice sounding programs, but often forget to figure out if they can pay for it.

[cprise]

13. Yeah, the Tories support healthcare

...the same way Reagan supported social security.

[mdguss]

19. Ian Duncan Smith:

Sold me on the Torries. I was driving home from work in the fall and has C-Span radio on. They were covering his speech to their party convention. I thought it was a very good speech. I didn't agree with all of it--he is flaky on some things--but he made sense when it came to governmental reforms and the local council tax. He also made sense when it came to tuition top up fees (essentially a way for Blair to triple tuition at the nation's universities). I pegged him as a truly moderate conservative from that speech.

Of course, the next week, the establishment Torries threw him out--apparently his election as party leader freaked them out. I'm not up on British politics, but I watch the PMs questions and listened to both Labour's and Convervative's party speeches. I agreed more with the Conservative's speech. Part of that might come from the fact that Blair spent a good ten minutes on Iraq in his speech.

[cprise]

23. You're lying to yourself

You just point-blank told me you intend to ignore the Tories actions and focus on the WORDS of their ousted leader.

For that you support the Tories.

Is this, and the Iraq invasion, the level of political enabling and self-betrayal the DLC engenders?

[mdguss]

29. Most people who support the DLC:

Probably love Tony Blair. I'm a bit of a maverick. I oppose the local property tax because I think it unfairly burdens the working class. I want college tuition to be kept low. And I opposed the Iraq War because the grounds we stated we'd go on were wrong. We said it was because weapons of mass destruction (I can name about a half dozen despots that probably have weapons or are close to having weapons of mass destruction, by the logic of Iraq, we should go to war with all of them). We should've went on the grounds of human rights abuses. True there are many, many places where human rights are abused, but I think that was a stronger ground to make the argument that the worst of human actions--war--was neccessary to deal with Saddam.

[T_i_B]

37. Dimwit-Smith?

I fail to see how anyone can call Kennedy a dry speaker whilst finding Dimwit-Smith a good speaker. Ian Duncan-Smith branded himself "the quiet man" because that that way he could get away with making bad speeches less often. He was known for being a very poor speaker indeed. In parliament Blair constantly knocked the stuffing out of him at PMQ's which more than anything else, contributed to his demise. His collegues just could not take the weekly drubbing any longer.

As for Kennedy, he has got a bit of wit about him (which is why he is on Have I Got News for You so often.) He can give some very typical politicans answers to questions but that aside, he has got the best platform of any of the party leaders, and the attempts to smear him as a boozer by the other parties just make this CAMRA member like him even more! :beer:

[mdguss]

39. Therein Lies the Difference Between British and American Politics:

Smith had a way of talking that was more understandable to average people. His line, "THATS WHY NO ONE BELIEVES A WORD HE SAYS ANYMORE," was a very, very good line. He speaks more informally than either Blair or Howard. Americans like, "plain speaking." And coffee. I guess you could argue that both are inferior, but different cultures are cool.

[T_i_B]

41. IDS spoke informally?

I felt it was the exact opposite. I always found him to be very, very stiff indeed. Which is why Blair the slick performer used to be able to best him at PMQ's so much.

[mdguss]

42. From where I sit:

I thought IDS usually got the best of Tony Blair. But again, I am watchng from across an ocean. I don't get the local culture or what is effective or not in Great Britain.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. An unusual opinion

that I don't think I've heard before. Everyone seemed to agree that IDS was a liability, because his speaking, especially in the Commons, was awful. People seriously said that Labour would work behind the scenes to keep IDS as the Tory leader, because he was such a problem for the Tories.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

14. Well, you've just managed to prove all these people's fears about the DLC

The Tories are that bad. That bad and a bag of chips.

[mdguss]

24. It's a Different Country with Different Issues:

But I wouldn't vote for a party that tripled tuition at colleges, I wouldn't vote for a party that misused intelligence to aid Bush's war, I wouldn't vote for a party that spied on Kofi Annan because they thought he was somehow aiding Iraq, I wouldn't vote for a party that probably outed--though the report says they didn't--an off the record source that exposed their exaggerations on weapons of mass destruction (that source later committed suicide), I wouldn't support a government that oversees staggering increases in the council tax--which makes it more difficult for the middle class to own a home, I wouldn't vote for a party that spends 1/3rd the amount Thatcher--and yes Thatcher was that bad--spent on homeless prevention, I wouldn't vote for a party whose leader kisses up to George W. Bush whenever possible for no apparent reason. So I wouldn't vote for the Labour Party.

England essentially has three viable parties. The Liberal Democrats are interesting, but the don't seem to have depth to their positions. They come up with great ideas but forget to figure out how to make the idea a reality.

The Torries aren't perfect, but they would change. They would make the government more efficent, maybe too efficent. But I really think its time for a change in the leadership of the world. That means change here in the US and change in the UK. Somebody's got to lead--to do the hard work that will inspire people in North Korea to think through Ann Franks' diary and come to the conclusion that she was no loser. Somebody has to figure out how to make this world's energy situation more stable in the long-term. Somebody has got to figure out how we deal with labor and environmental standards in trade agreements while respecting local culture. The leader's of the world have to establish plans to deal with situations like Hati before they get out of control.

Are the Torries perfect? No. Neither is Labor. But at least, it would be giving someone else a chance. The leaders of this world have failed so spectaculary in the aftermath of September 11th that it is time for a change. Political points of view don't matter so much when it comes to world leadership--Churchill and Roosevelt did right for the world and were leaders.

PS--The Torries--with their opposition to the EU--are a semi-protectionist party. Again, I don't like Michael Howard as much as I liked Ian Duncan Smith, but I still think the world needs a change.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

27. Any signs of 'progressive' policy you see from the Tories

mean only one thing. They are desperate to regain power. Do not for one minute fool yourself into thinking that the Tories would not do everything the Blair administration has done and more. They have done, and will again.

[cprise]

28. Why does the UK need protection from the EU?

Do you prefer American-style free trade agreements over the EU?

[mdguss]

30. From a Self-Interested Stand-Point:

An EU without the UK is weaker. A weaker EU means that the dollar will become stronger and also that the US won't have substantial economic competition from Europe to deal with. Our economy here in the US would be better without the UK in the EU.

Edit: please see my post above. I think most of people who support the DLC like Tony Blair. I am a bit of a maverick and he has managed to hit a few nerves in terms of issues I care deeply about.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

31. Shouldn't you wish for stronger trading partners to stimulate global trade

Sorry, no space for a question mark.

[mdguss]

32. Well Yeah:

But when you take the train through western Pennsylvania and see abandoned factory after abandoned factory, and people sitting in the coffee shop all morning because they have nothing else to do, you want to do free trade in a way that doesn't hurt them anymore than they've already been hurt. The Steel Tarrif was one of the few good things that Bush has done. He undid it because of the strong position of the EU--showing that the US isn't a good bargaining position.

[cprise]

38. You have two choices:

1) "Free Trade" - American executives and investor class outsource jobs to 3rd world countries. Government is perpetually framed as the enemy. Business leaders become monopolistic and face little competition. People here become poor and powerless, people there stay poor and powerless.

2) Development that emulates the Asian Tigers (i.e. Japan and what played out in the 80s-90s) - Local governments and entrpeneurs cooperate to nurture a set of critical industries. Business leaders remain answerable to their local workforce/electorate and their populations build infrastructure and become affluent. People here are drawn into new industries to meet increased foreign demand (but our business leaders face stiff competition).

Now, *I* know that 2 is preferable. Who is more likely to support it: a) the US/Airstrip1, or b) the EU ?

[T_i_B]

40. Ah, Europe

The European Union is a big bugbear for the tories, and has been since the days of Thatcher. The key issue here for tories is National Soverignity. They feel that the EU is taking too much of it from the UK. To that end they want a referendum on the proposed EU constitution and they tend to be vehemently opposed to Britian joining the Euro.

The EU is unpopular in Britain, no two ways about it but the EU obsession of the Tories does equally turn many people off. My own MP is a staunchly Euro-sceptic tory who rebelled against the Maastricht treaty.

Myself, I am a moderate Euro-sceptic. I don't think Britain is right for the Euro now and I cannot see that changing any time soon. I am certainly no fan of the EU common agricultural policy but I do like the tariff-free single market. As to the proposed EU constitution, I can support that in principle, but I shall decide whether or not I can support it in pratice when I get round to reading the bugger!

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. But remember

The Conservative leadership avidly supported the war in Iraq, and their idea of dealing with labour and environmental standards is to ruin those of the UK. When they were in power, they introduced a flat local tax (not flat rate, just flat - the rich paid the same amount in pounds as the poor), until the non-payment rebellions convinced them to back off it; they nationalised everything they could, giving citizens' assets to their corporate cronies; and they regularly stir up fear of immigrants. As for IDS, he was in favour of retaining the ban on discussing homosexuality in schools. Possibly the least progressive politician Britain has had since Thatcher.

If you want a change, then why not vote for a Lib Dem? They haven't held power for 80 years. What's non-realistic about them?

[mdguss]

34. I don't Think Charles Kennedy Can Win:

The polls in Britain show that Labour has 34, Torries, 35 and Lib Dems 27 or something like that. I doubt Charles Kennedy can make that up in a campaign. He may be a compotent leader, but he seems a bit of a dry speaker to me.

I think it's time for new leadership in the world. Blair says he is running again. I wouldn't vote for him. I would probably vote for Labour if another person was leading the party. The current leadership of the world has failed. We need a new team.

Will I disagree with the Torries? Yeah, probably. But you know if they manage to deal effectively on the international scene and promote peace and prosperity for all in the world, then I can stand them. The domestic problems can be fixed in time (programs can--and are--restarted). We live in a time where the international scene is more important than the domestic scene.

All of my criticisms of Labour--and about 5,000 more things--also apply to Bush and the Republicans. I know I am voting for John Kerry this year because it is time for a change. Blair, when asked by Howard, didn't comment on what he'd like to see happen here--leading me to believe he wants Bush to win.

[T_i_B]

10. Miles off

Lib Dems are pro-government intervention, pro-constitutional reform, anti-gun. They are cool with drugs and gays but that's about all those two have in common.

The axe the tax stuff is a reference to council tax, which Lib Dems want replaced with a local income tax rather than a tax based on house prices. That's a big political issue in the UK at present.

[Rationality]

15. Oh alright. I'll shut up then. My bad.

[T_i_B]

35. It's OK

The whole council rates thing give me a chance to post the link to the latest protest movement in the UK. It's seen as a bit of a pensioners movement but it's still an important issue which could make a big difference come election time.

http://www.isitfair.co.uk

[RogueTrooper]

20. Labour

Tony Blair wont drive me out of the party.

If you sit by the river long enough you will watch your enemy float by.

Labour are still the only realistic opposition to the Tory Party.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

22. I wish you luck in your attempt to win your party back.

God knows we need them back.

[T_i_B]

36. Here's a link for you then

Good luck, cos' I think you will need it.

http://www.savethelabourparty.org

[ironflange]

25. Coming from a former Rhino voter

I picked the MRLP.

:crazy:

[Avonrepus]

44. Well being from England

I can't vote for the SNP, sinn Fein or Plyd cymru as they don't run in England only Scotland, N IReland and Wales respectively.

I'd like to think that Lib Dems would be better than Labour but they vote with them most of the time.

Plus most of the domestic problems we have now were the result of 18 years of Tory underfunding and bad privatization.

I would vote Labour, but not whilst they are NEw Labour, however I will vote, even if i spoil my ballot, it's the most basic and fundamental form of influencing the government I have.

Btw RogueTroope, think Arsenal will finish the season unbeaten?

[LoneStarLiberal]

45. Comments on the Big Three

I'd vote Scottish Nationalist Party but that's just because of my Scottish roots and the fact that the part of Scotland my family is from is solidly SNP territory.

As for the Big Three, I am conflicted. The Tories are a geriatric bunch of hacks for the most part whose only platform over the last four years has been "we're opposed to whatever Labour and Blair are doing." It was at least fun watching IDS get worked up and verbally assault Blair in a polite sort of way during Prime Minister's Questions. Why the Tory leadership thought Michael Howard would be an improvement over IDS is beyond me. He's less likeable (as likeability goes for Tories, which is kind of like talking about likeability for one-eyed pit bulls), older, and generally all the things the Tory leader SHOULD NOT BE at this time.

The Liberal Dems just don't seem ready for national leadership right now. Kennedy gives a better aura of leadership than Howard though still less telegenic than Blair. The big axe I have to grind with the Liberal Dems is that their policy formulations seem to be at odds with their leadership's positions. Its almost as if the whole operation is still an after-school project where no one can quite be bothered to get on the same page.

And that leaves us with Labour. Exactly what Tony Blair was thinking when he decided to bandwagon with Bush over Iraq is beyond me. I still wake up at night crying out "Why Tony, WHY?!?" Before Iraq I never would have doubted Blair and New Labour. I'm a Clinton Democrat, a moderate through-and-through though more liberal on social issues than Clinton. This same centrist innovation is what I always loved about Blair's agenda. Why he betrayed this legacy by backing this disasterous Iraq adventure whole-heartedly absolutely boggle my mind and I think may still very well cost him the leadership position before his time.

As a party, Labour is fortunate that their opposition are so bickering and geriatric.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

47. Would that be the North East of Scotland your family is from?

[Zero Gravitas]

46. MRLP

only because there's no option for the Socialist Worker's Party (whatever happened to the SWP? ... he's sitting over there SPLITTER! badum-chhhhh)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

48. I couldn't keep track of all the different Socialist groups.

They really are their own worst enemy in that respect. The Scots managed to get some MSP's elected, so they can represent the others, I guess.

[T_i_B]

49. The SWP

The SWP are part of the Socialist Alliance, which has alsogot the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Communist Party of Great britain as members. Dunno whether the Socialist party are in or out of that one at present. When I was doing the anti-war marches they were out but apparently they are now back in. All the other groups in the SA seem to spend more time bashing the SWP then anyone else.

Outside of the SWP you have Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party, the Workers Revolutionary Party, the Spartacists etc. Socialist solidarity is something of a joke if you ask me.

[Nihil]

50. Possible "other"

I want to see if the Unity coalition gets off the ground.