homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Dilemma (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dilemma
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What do you do when you valuate a candidate but cannot support the Party he represents?

I have in mind a LibDem candidate in the upcoming General Election.

He is an excellent candidate. Aligned with a Party which is opportunistic and 'amoral' in irs approach to power.

Any ideas?

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Email him, explain the situation, then vote for someone from a party you can trust. MPs generally have very little autonomy so voting for a good MP from a lousy party comes out as a net negative.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Agreed, though I'd consider making an exception if the candidate was a person with a known track record of making principled stands on things that matter to you, in defiance of the party whip.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
What do you do when you valuate a candidate but cannot support the Party he represents?

I have in mind a LibDem candidate in the upcoming General Election.

He is an excellent candidate. Aligned with a Party which is opportunistic and 'amoral' in irs approach to power.

Any ideas?

You might also think about his possible contribution. I am a fan of one Lib Dem Minister who has, on the whole, had a very positive effect in his Department. So if you think he might get the opportunity to good around a particular issue or contribute some special expertise, he may be worth your cross on the ballot.

You might also want to ask yourself who, of the available candidates, would make the best constituency MP.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Never vote for a party you cannot wholeheartedly support. They'll only use you vote later to enact policies you would never have supported if they had mentioned it at the election.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The trouble is that ends up with me voting for no party at all, since there are elements in all of them which I distrust.

I wonder whether the political system may be shifting a bit with the rise of social media. MPs are having to respond more directly to those who elect them, and the balance is shifting between the influence of the party and that of the voting public.

I think I would say vote for the person whose integrity you believe you can trust - and also tell them in no uncertain terms why you dislike the way their party is behaving. Then when the whips tell the MPs they need to do X, they can tUrn round and say, "but my constituents are calling on me to do Y". That starts to feed your views into the party machine.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I vote for the party with the least bad policies, regardless of candidate. If it's a close run thing, I always vote for the opposition.

Voting governments out of office is a good thing; best way to keep them humble (if that's possible of course).

But I always vote. People died to get me that right.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We have a political system which was set up long before political parties existed. We do actually vote in an individual to represent each constituency, but everything about the system acts against individual conscience of MPs, so you really cannot vote without considering the party you are electing.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I wonder whether the political system may be shifting a bit with the rise of social media. MPs are having to respond more directly to those who elect them, and the balance is shifting between the influence of the party and that of the voting public.

Possibly, I don't know. But if that is happening it would mean that MPs are shifting in the face of social media users (and, more particularly, users who use social media to advance political causes/arguments). I'm not sure that's necessarily an improvement on things.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Never vote for a party you cannot wholeheartedly support. ...

If that were the case, most of us would never vote at all. And before you say that would be a good thing, let me add that it's my view that those who decline to vote forfeit all moral right to grumble about the government at all.

Going back to the OP, if there's a candidate you respect personally, then unless you actually support one of the other parties and want them to win, vote for him or her rather than their affiliation.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Barnabas62 makes the best point. We can always find a policy we disagree with for every party, and I expect that applies to paid-up party members (though they won't say so in public).

For me there is no dilemma. I look at the policies as a whole, the individual candidate, and make my mark (usually while holding my nose).

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By and large the advice of Disraeli on such matters has merit: "Damn your principles! Stick to your party!" Of course, "sticking to your party is a principle" which has much to commend it! Disraeli also opined that "A Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy".

In your specific case, Shamwari, I would suggest it's a matter of voting for which outcome you least dislike that has the best chance of winning.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, if you all don't vote for people you actually like, the net result is that they're not around to actually influence and change the direction of the party.

Have you thought about that? You are actually encouraging the party to stay further away from your own views.

Rather than talking to the candidate and letting them know why you're not going to vote for them, you'd be far better off letting them know why you ARE voting for them, to give them ammunition for internal party debates - "this is what my consitutents, the people who voted me into office, want".

[ 26. March 2015, 01:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Voting, like so much in life, has to end up being a picking of the least bad option.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The worst possible candidate from the worst possible party has won my federal riding 4 elections in a row. There's a plurality of many thousands. So it matters nary a sparrow's fart if I vote for anyone, nay a flea's fart or that of a germ. So I vote for the candidate who seems the most sensible, even if it means not a thing.

Yet, as a family we were needful of an MP's help, so I sent him a note, and he helped. Properly. Even the devil can be your friend sometimes. No-one is unidimensional, and is only defined by their political stripes. The politicians have consciences as much as possible in their line of work. They might have been independent in their thinkery once.

Though, I had another experience with a politician that stuck with me a good number of years ago. This one was in trouble himself, with his own sense of what's right and wrong, and he told me that when he had his first meeting with the politicos from our region, that he felt the scales had dropped from his eyes and landed on his heart to realize that for 3/4 of them, being elected was the best job they'd ever had, and worse, that some of the side conversation was about how long someone had to serve to collect the pension.

What a sad and sorry world of governance. [Waterworks]

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473

 - Posted      Profile for Huia   Email Huia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the positives of Mixed Member Proportional representation as it applies in NZ, is that I was able to use my electorate vote for an MP who is brilliant and the party vote for a party that I believe to be more ethical than the one to which she belongs. [Cool]

Huia

--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.

Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Similarly, the multi-member electorates in the ACT and Tasmania, with the mandatory rotation of names within each party's list, actively encourage voters to not just pick a party but pick individual people within the party.

I can recall at least one election result in my electorate that was first and foremost about kicking out a member from one party who'd performed badly, and replacing him with someone else from the same party.

And when the campaign is on, we tend to get material that is not just party-based, but individual-based: "vote 1 for me, then 2 to 5 for the rest of the team from my party in your order of preference".

[ 26. March 2015, 06:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
By and large the advice of Disraeli on such matters has merit: "Damn your principles! Stick to your party!" Of course, "sticking to your party is a principle" which has much to commend it! Disraeli also opined that "A Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy".

In your specific case, Shamwari, I would suggest it's a matter of voting for which outcome you least dislike that has the best chance of winning.

Disraeli's view has no merit, and has had a thoroughly and consistently detrimental effect on British parliamentary life throughout my lifetime.

Ramsey MacDonald is still castigated by his own party for putting country before party and that was right back in 1931.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And before you say that would be a good thing, let me add that it's my view that those who decline to vote forfeit all moral right to grumble about the government at all.


Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. MPs represent everyone in a constituency - whether they voted for him/her or whether they voted at all.

Voting, in and of itself, is no bar (or entrance) to political campaigning, lobbying parliament, writing to MPs or any other political activity.

Nor should it be.

To my mind, it is those who preach tactical voting who have got British politics into the mess it is in - where we have political parties which do not actually stand for the policies people believe in and frequently change manifesto policies after the election.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You vote for the candidate. If he is elected then you write or email him with your concerns about the wider party.

I'm not sure why you're so harsh about the LibDems being
quote:
...opportunistic and 'amoral' in irs approach to power.
Opportunistic - perhaps they thought it better to (a) have some power rather than waiting for a day (unlikely to arrive in anyone's lifetime) when they won a majority; and (b) that they had more chance of ameliorating what they assumed would be disagreeable Conservative policies from the government benches than from opposition.

Its all very well being high-minded but sometimes you have to work with the situation you have, not hold out for the one you want - pragmatism in other words.

And if that strikes you as amoral its to be regretted - but surely no more immoral than, say, Vince Cable voting for one policy while secretly rubbishing it in off-the-record conversations with journalists (of course, one forgets until this sort of thing happens that VC was a committed member of the Labour Party for 17+ years before joining the SDP).

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The UK, and probably everywhere else, has a srewed up electoral system. It's a democracy, the worst possible form of government, except for all the others.

In theory, we are voting for individuals to represent our constituency. In practice we're mostly voting for a party which we most closely align ourselves too. Or, even voting for the leader of that party because we think they'll be the better PM.

It's mixed up because if we're just voting for a representative for our constituency then all the candidates should be effectively independents, because their party affiliation is irrelevant. If we're voting for a party we should be using some form of PR because the particular individuals who sit on the benches in Parliament are irrelevant as long as they vote the way the party says. If we're voting for the party leader to be PM we should just admit that, and call the post President and have a direct vote for President.

But, each model is seriously flawed.

If MPs are all Independent how do they choose a PM and Cabinet? Who proposes policy? Who has the responsibility of finding all the flaws in the policies submitted by the government?

If the MPs are simply drones voting according to party orders then democracy moves from the debating chambers of Parliament to the back rooms of party head quarters.

If we directly elect a President, what happens when the President can't gain the support of Parliament for any actions? A workable Presidential system also needs a party system to get seats in Parliament. And, then we're right back into the dilemma of independents vs party drones.

So, I think we do need a system that combines all three elements in a sensible way. The system in Scotland, and incidentally it's similar here in Japan, with both constituency MSPs elected by FPTP and top-up lists MSPs elected by PR combines two parts of the system. In a way that I think works very well - although in Westminster it would mean a significant decrease in the number of constituencies if the total number of MPs is not to rise significantly. Would we want a follow-up election to decide which party leader (probably narrow it down to the two parties with the largest number of MPs) we want as PM?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The system in Scotland ... combines two parts of the system. In a way that I think works very well - although in Westminster it would mean a significant decrease in the number of constituencies if the total number of MPs is not to rise significantly.

Which would reduce their links to any local community, as individual "geographical" MPs would have to represent far more people. But, as you say, no system is perfect.

[ 26. March 2015, 08:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, which is the downside. Although the way it works in Scotland is that the regional list MSPs are also your constituency MSP (they just represent several constituencies) and will also handle that sort of query - which does mean that if you can't get on with your constituency MSP you have someone else to go to. That is a positive thing IMO - imagine (God forbid) you get stuck with a BNP MP and have a problem because your school is not doing enough to discipline bullies who submit your child to racist abuse, under a single MP system you're screwed, with a regional list system you can take your issue to an MP from a more reasonable party.

The ratio of MSPs to members of the public is thus the same as it would be for an all-constituency system.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
imagine (God forbid) you get stuck with a BNP MP and have a problem because your school is not doing enough to discipline bullies who submit your child to racist abuse, under a single MP system you're screwed, with a regional list system you can take your issue to an MP from a more reasonable party.

Oh, I don't know - a BNP candidate would rue the day he was elected in my constituency, I'd be giving him so much work his head would be constantly spinning.

It seems to me this is actually an advantage of the constituency system - they are actually obliged to listen and respond to constituents.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593

 - Posted      Profile for american piskie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems to me this is actually an advantage of the constituency system - they are actually obliged to listen and respond to constituents.

Ha. Ha. Ha.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There would be constituency MPs who would do their job and actually listen to and respond to constituents. They are sadly not as common I'd like (well, I'd like every MP to be like that). A BNP (God forbid) MP is very unlikely to be one of the good ones.

Actually, that is one of the problems of the system we have. If you live in the constituency of some back bencher then your MP is likely to work very hard for the constituency. If you're unfortunate enough to live in the constituency of a senior minister or shadow minister then the amount of time they'll have available for constituency matters will be severely restricted. Which is something in favour of a Presidential system where the President is not an MP, or at least not a constituency MP - which might be another benefit of a list system not directly linked to constituencies, you put the talented people you want in your cabinet on the list so they can do their ministerial work while leaving non-ministerial MPs with more time to handle constituency affairs.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The UK, and probably everywhere else, has a srewed up electoral system. It's a democracy, the worst possible form of government, except for all the others.

Except that the fact your electoral system is screwed has precisely nothing to do with being a democracy, other than that being a democracy requires you to have some kind of electoral system.

You even had a chance to improve it, and it was blown. Partly because of completely fanciful stories about what happens in Australia which had anyone over here who was following the news asking WTF??

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, we in the UK have now twice blown the chance to make significant improvements in our constitutional system. For what it's worth, I voted on the losing side on both occasions.

But, looking at the AV vote in particular (as that's presumably the one you're referring to) it was voted down for a variety of reasons. The biggest being that Cameron is a very clever politician who managed to buy LibDem support for his government with promise of a referendum on the electoral system and then managed to get the only option on the ballot a system no-one actually wanted.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There would be constituency MPs who would do their job and actually listen to and respond to constituents. They are sadly not as common I'd like.

There are 2 MPs who represent our town. I live in one of the constituencies and my church is in the other. One is pretty good at responding to issues that are raised locally, while the other is really excellent. The fact that both are relatively young, keen and energetic may have something to do with that. Sadly neither belongs to the party I choose to support!

Strangely enough, the fact that these MPs are seen in public and do comment on local affairs has caused some people to become very cynical, and suggest that all they want to do is raise their profiles and become "well-known". I think that is unfair; if the MPs never said or did a thing they'd then be criticised for being lazy and uninterested in the communities they represent.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, looking at the AV vote in particular (as that's presumably the one you're referring to) it was voted down for a variety of reasons. The biggest being that Cameron is a very clever politician who managed to buy LibDem support for his government with promise of a referendum on the electoral system and then managed to get the only option on the ballot a system no-one actually wanted.

Sadly, I cannot disagree. I think it demonstrated how naive the LibDems were in the early days of the Coalition.

(P.S. Why does the BBC persist in saying things like, "The Coalition has proposed ...". Why not just say, "The Government has proposed ..."?)

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, yes the LibDems were naive. That doesn't alter the fact that Cameron manoeuvred them into accepting a referendum they didn't really want. He played on their naivety.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, we in the UK have now twice blown the chance to make significant improvements in our constitutional system. For what it's worth, I voted on the losing side on both occasions.

But, looking at the AV vote in particular (as that's presumably the one you're referring to) it was voted down for a variety of reasons. The biggest being that Cameron is a very clever politician who managed to buy LibDem support for his government with promise of a referendum on the electoral system and then managed to get the only option on the ballot a system no-one actually wanted.

What was the other one apart from AV?

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Scottish Independence.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The main issue about an MPs effectiveness isn't his or her personal politics or their party. It's whether they have the capacity to keep all those plates spinning, with the help of their private offices in Westminster and at home in their constituency.

The "back office" staff are very underrated.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Oh, yes the LibDems were naive. That doesn't alter the fact that Cameron manoeuvred them into accepting a referendum they didn't really want. He played on their naivety.

Well, that's really what I meant. [Big Grin]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scottish Independence.

I thought that's what you probably meant, but it's not fair to blame the "UK" for blowing that, as only a very small bit had anything to do with the choice, however much campaigning and noise making went on outside of Scotland.

And "independence" is a little different from changing the constitutional system. Anyway, I'm sure we had plenty of good threads on that at the time, so I shan't tangent us any more on that.

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To answer the OP I have a splendid Tory constituency MP, who was first elected in 1997. Given that the outcome of the next general election is going to be all over the shop the legitimacy (or not) of the government will hinge, among other factors, on the number of votes cast. That being the case I will vote for the party I prefer. This will have no effect on the re-election of the local MP and probably a piffling effect on the outcome of the election. But it does lessen the likelihood of my favoured party getting a majority of seats and a minority of votes, albeit by one vote in sixty million.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What was the last party that was 'moral in it's use of power'?

Apparently not the Lib Dems in the present government according to the OP. Presumably not then the Conservatives of today either. Labour before that with the odd bit of war mongering here and there. Conservatives before them in the Thatcher era?

What actually makes the OP's candidate excellent? If the sitting MP now, has he got a good track record of being the "community champion", or has he held an office very effectively in government, or is he coming in as a prospective MP with wide experience as a "working man" outside of politics?

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having had a few RL years up close with parliamentarians and party life, I strongly tell people to vote for the best candidate unless the best candidate's party is utterly impossible for them as a voter. I saw how well-respected opposition members got rapid golden responses from departments and ministers, while despised government MPs (list available for a decent glass of single malt) were given the back of the hand.

As a bureaucrat, we would often receive down through the pipeline all sorts of MPs' enquiries with a whisper from the manager that Ms Jones MP was a good constituency member, with the implication that we had better be sharp. And every now and then, an MP had such a sterling presence (such as Bill Blaikie or Tom MacMillan) or was well-liked (David Crombie or Wally MacLean) that we didn't need the whisper.

I recall one PC MP telling me that he particularly enjoyed providing the best possible service to known political opponents in his constituency as it was the thing which annoyed them most.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, looking at the AV vote in particular (as that's presumably the one you're referring to) it was voted down for a variety of reasons. The biggest being that Cameron is a very clever politician who managed to buy LibDem support for his government with promise of a referendum on the electoral system and then managed to get the only option on the ballot a system no-one actually wanted.

That's not quite how I remember things. I seem to remember William Hague emerging from one round of coalition negotiations with the Lib Dems and announcing to the press that the Conservatives had agreed to a referendum on AV specifically.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
but it's not fair to blame the "UK" for blowing that, as only a very small bit had anything to do with the choice, however much campaigning and noise making went on outside of Scotland.

It's not relevant here. But, I meant "people in the UK", not "everyone in the UK". Afterall, not everyone in the UK had a chance to vote on AV either. Not even all the current electorate, as a large number of them have become eligible to vote since then.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
those who decline to vote forfeit all moral right to grumble about the government at all.

I've voted in every local, parliamentary and EU election since I first had the opportunity. I don't feel politics has gotten better.

But how far do you push the 'you have to vote' line? Suppose you lived in a one party state which you didn't approve of - would you still vote? Or in a two party state where both parties were equally un-representative of your views?

I'd like to have a 'None of the above' option on the ballot so I could say I'm voting - but for for a different system.

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Que sais-je, I can see the argument 'what if you were in a one party state?'. Unlike most people on this board, I've lived in one, though I wasn't eligible to vote there. However, this doesn't apply to the UK election we're actually talking about.

If a person really has a profound and principled objection to ALL the candidates who happen to be standing in their constituency, I would accept that deliberately spoiling one's ballot paper - rather than just not bothering to vote at all - doesn't forfeit one's moral right to grumble.

Spoilt papers are recorded as such, but without any recording of why they were spoilt. There's no way anyone can make the point whether,
a. They don't like any of the candidates, or
b. They disagree with the system, or
c. They just filled in their ballot paper incompetently.


Otherwise, though, I still think that however disillusioned one feels, one should at least vote for the candidate or party you'd least dislike to see getting in.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Otherwise, though, I still think that however disillusioned one feels, one should at least vote for the candidate or party you'd least dislike to see getting in.

Enoch, I will do that in the end but I increasingly feel that 'good constituency MPs' in a major party are useful a screen for those who actually run things (i.e those in the cabinet).

But as I'm in Bristol West there are other options.

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ha! A vote for one of the small parties will let the existing MP back in.

Some of us want change.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ha! A vote for one of the small parties will let the existing MP back in.

Some of us want change.

So those who want change should vote for the status quo?

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ha! A vote for one of the small parties will let the existing MP back in.

In a first past the post system it will, yes. You become caught in a catch-22, though. The only way the vote for a "small" party means something is if the party stops being "small"... and there's no prospect of that ever happening so long as all the people who are considering voting for that party separately decide not to, on the grounds that it'll be a wasted vote, unaware of all the other people who've gone through the exact same process.

To me this is actually the single greatest problem with FPTP, as I've said before. It encourages 'tactical' voting in a way that hides people's real preferences.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ha! A vote for one of the small parties will let the existing MP back in.

Some of us want change.

So those who want change should vote for the status quo?
No - the clear contender for our seat against the LibDem is Labour.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And, the status quo in UK politics is a term or two of Conservative government, followed by a term or two of Labour government, going back to a term of two of Conservative government .... with the occasional small variation of maybe three terms of one party in government, or one party propped up by support from another smaller party - LibDems, Ulster Unionists, maybe we'll have SNP this time?

How to break that status quo? We'll find alternatives to voting in people from one of those two parties. In Scotland and Wales we're fortunate to have an existing party likely to get seats. The Greens are in a position in a few places to get a seat or two (whether they will or not is going to depend on the choice of the electorate in those constituencies). There are probably a couple of places where a respected local person could stand as Independent and have a good chance. Form a local party, that would represent the interests of your region and bring the cultural distinctiveness of the region to Westminster. A party similar to PC or SNP (although, maybe without the Independence for our Region policy goal) for the SW of England or for Tyneside.

These smaller parties and Independents would never hope to form a government in Westminster - by definition a regional party can never win enough seats even with 100% of the vote in their region. But, maybe in cooperation with each other they can strike a deal and get their voice, and that of those who voted for them, heard. Tell a prospective government "if you propose a good idea we'll support it because it's a good idea", "propose a really bad idea and we'll oppose it because it's a bad idea", but "for those ideas in the middle we'll support you if you also go a reasonable way to getting bills before the House that address some of our policy aspirations".

I think the biggest part of our political status quo is the idea that minority governments can't work, and that coalition governments are just a minor party selling out their principles to prop up an otherwise weak government. It's a pernicious lie. Scotland has had some very successful minority governments, and cooperative coalitions. As have plenty of other countries. Of course, there are lots of examples where that hasn't worked. But for a claim "it can work" then there is plenty of evidence. What it does need, however, is an attitude that the way to govern and get your policies enacted is to make sure they are good policies that MPs from other parties will support on the basis that they are good. And, conversely for the Opposition to oppose really crap ideas, and offer rigorous criticism of even the good ones (they can always be better), rather than simply try to shout them down because they were proposed by the government.

Which will take a major shift in the attitudes of the UK political parties and their leading members whoo sit in Parliament. That's not going to happen as long as we keep voting for one of the same two or three parties. That is the status quo that needs to be broken.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398

 - Posted      Profile for Full Circle     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to return to the OP question briefly:
Systems are run by people. If people vote by party only you encourage political parties to propose "card board cut out" candidates who will follow the party line at all costs. I think that if more people voted for the best candidate (however they define best) we might have more politicians who are more responsive to constituents views.

--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)

Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools