No way shall I vote Conservative in May.

so any thoughts on who you may vote for, JK?

At present it's either Lib Dems who I voted for last time because of their stance on Iraq but I'm tempted to boycott the election completely.

nah, don't boycott it JK.

Personally I am divided between the Lib Dems and the Greens, as I may have said elsewhere on this board.

Lib Dems for two reasons- firstly, because, as you say, they were a rare force in opposing the Iraq war from the start; and secondly because I like the thought of Vince cable as Chancellor.

and let's not forget that the Lib Dems are polling at 20%, that's 1 in 5 voters, yet they are always screwed by the voting system.


The Greens equally for two reasons. The first is their leader Caroline Lucas who I genuinely believe is the most charismatic politician in the UK today. The second is that I want to vote for a minority party, so why not a party that cares for the world we are slowly destroying.

In a maverick kind of way I also like the loony lefty* side of the Greens. I may not agree with the extreme nature of some of their left-wing policies, but they say it like they mean it.

*loony lefty copyright Jonathan King in vile Pervert, The Musical.

1 in 5 vote Lib Dem, which means that 4 out of 5 don't, which means that 80% vote against them.

A boycott of the election is the same as a vote for Labour. They plunged us into an illegal war which killed thousands of civilians. To not vote against them is kinda like saying that what they did was okay. We should all vote, even if it's just for the cat lovers party.

Greens? Ugh!! Bunch of power crazed tree huggers! No thanks.
How can vote for someone when you don't agree with the "extreme nature of some of their left-wing policies"? That doesn't seem to compute.

I agree with EMMA - regardless of whether you like Cameron or not - it is vital that you vote for someone who will stop NEW LABOUR.

The problem with ALL parties is that they all believe roughly the same thing.

The difference between New Labour and the rest is that they have their feet under the table and can pass laws quickly and without any thought.

I would hope people would vote for a party that does not include Labour. Whoever, is ahead in your local seat. If that is a TORY then vote TORY.

A GREEN vote is under the current system a wasted vote.

I think boycotting elections is a recipe for disaster.

The one thing I like about Oz elections is that voting is compulsorary even though many complain about it. In the end a government is elected that broadly reflects what the people want -for good or bad.

I think the best thing we can hope for the UK is a hung parliamnet with a smaller party holding the balance of power.

Is there any difference between Labour and Conservatives ?..absolutely not.

And that's bizarre.

BR wrote:
The difference between New Labour and the rest is that they have their feet under the table and can pass laws quickly and without any thought.

I would hope people would vote for a party that does not include Labour. Whoever, is ahead in your local seat. If that is a TORY then vote TORY.

Thats right, BR - some tactical voting can produce a good result.

As you say, Nooo Labour has taken away more of our liberties that ALL other Govs in history ! We didn't need these draconian powers during 2 World Wars - nor even during an English Civil War - but they keep spouting the same thing .... "Give us all your rights and we will protect you (from the demon that WE created !)

Emma Bee wrote:
1 in 5 vote Lib Dem, which means that 4 out of 5 don't, which means that 80% vote against them.

Not sure I get the logic there, Emma. Are you saying that people who vote Labour, Conservative etc are actually voting against the Lib Dems? That would be very flattering to the Lib Dems if it were true!

20% is a decent percentage of the vote, yet due to the current voting system they are awarded fewer than 10% of the seats.

As regards the Greens, 'tree-hugging' is a very out-dated phrase in a time when we are much more aware of the need to take action on environmental issues. I can live with voting for a party that has policies I don't agree with if, as in the case of the Greens, they focus on a major issue they agree with and have a leader I respect a lot. Besides which, who do you vote for if you don't want to vote for the big 3 or not vote?

My problem is - democracy clearly does not work. So why contribute by voting?

Let the idiots decide who they want in then let me concentrate my energy on making the best for myself out of the society that is created.

I would probably vote for Lib Dems, mainly because I don't want to vote for the 4-wheel drive loving tories and in my area of Surrey, it is pointless to vote for Labour, even If I wanted to, because they have no chance of getting in.

Lib Dems have a good chance of getting in, in the Guildford constituency as it was very close last time. I may vote for one of the minority parties like (UKIP or English Defence League) just as a protest vote against the EU and the UK's loss of power to Europe and the free labour market, which has destroyed many British towns beyond repair and put a tremendous strain on schools, hospitals, and public transport.

david wrote:
20% is a decent percentage of the vote, yet due to the current voting system they are awarded fewer than 10% of the seats.


Actually, it was either the last election or maybe the one before but the Lib Dems actually polled about 23.5% of the total vote.

Why do I feel that all the main party's are not worth getting out of bed for. If the truth about how inept and corrupt they were was laid bare then there would be an uproar. Govenment has turned into a corrupt mire and only mass sacking and proper veting of the new members would make some difference.

When interviewed the majority deflect or avoid questions. For a film star I can understand such actions and question avoidance, but the are representing our country for goodness sake - and we have a right to know!

I hope Nigel Farage is elected to Parliament. He's the only one giving any direct answers to questions at the moment. He's on Question Time tonight.

I have to say, Mr Farage is coming across as rather amateurish on Question Time.

I like Nigel Farage. He's blunt, tells it like it is and, while obviously knowing he needs publicity as much as anyone else seeking election, doesn't shy away from challenge or attempt to only say what he thinks people want to hear. If that's amateurish then I'd rather Parliament was filled with such amateurs than the professional spinners who currently occupy it.

He reminds me very much of Cyril Smith (apart from his size).

Janet Street Porter was very annoying, as usual.

And is there anyone alive with less character than Peter Hain?

JC wrote:
I like Nigel Farage. He's blunt, tells it like it is

Now I quite like people who tell it 'like it is', or as they see it. Ann Widdecombe is someone who I share no common ground with on almost any issue, but I like her honesty and straightforwardness.

Nigel Farage's comments in the European Parliament tho were just plain embarrassing. Resulting to personal insults on the man and his country- how is that 'telling it like it is'? It's rude and ignorant.

Shirley Williams was interviewed by Fern Brittan on Jeremy Vine's show the other day and voiced her admiration for the new UKIP leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch, saying that her views were radically different to his on Europe but that he was a decent chap who you could have a reasoned debate with. Unlike Mr Farage.

He could quite easily have voiced his opinions with just as much force and conviction without resulting to petty insults and name-calling.

The editorial in today's Times put it very well:

This newspaper did not want a leader of the European Council either. But no, Mr Farage, you do not speak for the majority of the British people. They would not dream of being so pathetically rude and neither do they relish being represented by the political equivalent of Alan Partridge.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leadin...e/article7041756.ece