cos it's always a choice between a **** and a nob-end
2007-02-06 05:33:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
In three party politics there are three parties. Two generally get in power in alternation, and the third is usually left fighting for the rights of the minorities.
If the two parties which get in power only ever deal with the issues which affect the segment of the population which they represent, then the big issue is never dealt with.
We are suffering from a system which alternates between two evils, and leaves the innocent persecuted.
Quite often in a game of corner, where a participant is cornered and can never win, the best solution is not to play. Effectively, the people who do not vote are saying that the system is not working for me. I am not represented by the options you present to me, and so government effectively does not exist for me. I am not governed by your rules and regulations. I set my own rules and regulations, and if they match yours all good and well. If not expect confrontation and defiance.
The only way to deal with a system which excludes a person, is to exclude the system. Not voting is a manifestation of that phenomena!
The other way to deal with a system which excludes a person, is to infiltrate and change the system by changing a party which does not represent you into one which does. Starting a new party would not help much, changing an existing one which had a chance of being in government might.
2007-02-06 13:53:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by James 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
There has been a fall in voting across Europe, not just in the UK.
I suspect this is connected with the atomisation of society, which is illustrated by considerably reduced memberships of social groupings, such as unions, political parties, churches which used to be the means by which people become politically motivated.
Furthermore, following the demise of communism, with odd small party exception the main parties share more or less the same values, so whether the blue or red team are in charge probably makes very little difference.
For instance, neither of the two main parties opposed the war in Iraq, neither would legalise drugs, neither would nationalise industry, reduce taxes etc..
In any case, if you are, say, a blue voter in a red district the likelihood of your team winning is slight; victory in the British system is dependent on a very small number of "swing" constituencies.
Another factor is thye lousiness of outr politicians. They just parrot their party lines without any originality, desperate to please their party managers. They seem completely to lack any real respect for the electorate, just coming out with inane soundbites.
2007-02-06 13:50:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Vote? You obviously believe we have a choice. Did u know that your p.m's are picked by an elite, that's why its hard to tell the difference between parties. They do the work of their masters not the general public. Democracy has always been a right only afforded to the elite read your history, nothing has changed. If u don't believe me research the Bilderberg group, they are the creators of the U.S and European heads of state.
2007-02-06 14:54:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Convince Pete 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that all the parties are the same, it's just between conservatives and labour really and I can't see any difference between the two. They are all just corrupt, greedy little businessmen.
I haven't had a chance to vote yet (just 18), and I'd quite like a 'none of the above' box.
2007-02-06 13:43:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by floppity 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Very simple answer, which party has kept its election promises, are you better off for choosing Blair or worse off. Similarly when you put your faith / vote for a party, you require results, for you and your family.
You dont accept your chosen leader to have your brothers and sisters killed in a war that did not concern you, just following Bush blindly, just because Bush Sr. Adopted Tony and now both Tony and George are blood brothers for OIL.
2007-02-07 06:01:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by ashok kumar 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
apathy, can't be bothered I know that "party will win" it seems that most voters follow the same pattern as learnt by their parents and just will not put themselves out. I think it needs a strong candidate of whatever party to make his/her voice heard and then maybe we will all pull together, it takes a strong augument to keep this country alert, take the recennt CBB affair, wow what a storm everybody was interested. follow that!!!!!!!!
2007-02-06 13:42:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by woodie2007 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
If there was a box for "None of the above", people might vote more. I mean, who would you prefer?
Labour? - Gordon Brown
Conservatives? - Cameron has boring speeches
Lib Dems? - Don't stand a chance and may as well give up
UKIP? - Don't know anything about their party
BNP? - All racists and want capital and corporal punishments and national service brought in
Not looking too good, is it?
2007-02-06 13:39:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by BrilliantPomegranate 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
maybe no one in this country should vote at all,I wonder what would happen then to the political parties if this happened
2007-02-06 13:42:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Just for Laughs 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
my grandparents and great grandparent fought for the right NOT to vote!!!
That is freedom, I hate all the swine and choose not to vote.
It isn't like I get away with not paying taxes or anything, I am still subject to the rule of the state regardless.
2007-02-06 13:34:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
a lot of middle age people have givven up on the goverments prommises and the younger sector . this is my own personal view that the are smoking dope and dont give a F**k p.s i mean most younger people not all.
2007-02-06 13:37:32
·
answer #11
·
answered by meandean 5
·
0⤊
0⤋