« Join the debate | Main | Someone explain THIS to the public »
April 22, 2005
Press Update - 22/04/05
Catching up on some BBC News from yesterday, which brings back the issue beginning to characterise the whole campaign, i.e. who on earth are we supposed to vote for?
On the other hand, Britain's first-past-the-post, non-proportional electoral system makes it hard for the Liberal Democrats to make a big breakthrough. It is also near impossible for voters to produce the result they want.
In this personalised campaign, for example, many former Labour supporters would like Mr Blair to suffer, but they do not want Mr Howard in his place.
They are tempted to vote for Mr Kennedy, but in many constituencies that would simply let the Conservative candidate in.
This dilemma for a disillusioned electorate may result in an even lower turnout. And that could be the most crucial factor of all.
This is taken on by the Guardian and an insightful article in today's G2, this time specifically who do anti-war Labour people vote for?
The Economist tells us this is all down to the convergence of the two main parties, and that according to the British Social Attitudes survey, only 17% reckoned there was a great deal of difference between the Conservatives and Labour.
The result with respect to turnout will be to limit it, with 65% the best that can be expected, boosted in part by an increase in postal voting.
Until voters think they are being asked to do more than choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, it's unlikely to get much better than that.
The Guardian tells us it's time Mr Kennedy stood up and made a go of this historical opportunity that has presented itself. The people are confused; if Charlie made more noise, he could help them, and himself out. Leader. Main piece.
Want to learn more about the election: read a book about it. Especially Lewis'. He's the one that posted about who should I vote for sites yesterday. Which makes him quicker off the mark than John O’Farrell.
And not exactly in the press, but Labour PPC, Austin Mitchell tells people that
Now there’s a bias to Labour. Our constituencies are smaller by 5-6000 than the average Tory seat. So even if we’re neck and neck in the polls Labour will still win with a good majority. Don`t let that news get out because it takes all the horse race excitement away.
There's a good deal more honesty if you follow the link.
And last, but not least, that Saviour Sect quote from a day or two ago in full
Voting for any political party which has a policy of legislating law is Kufr Akbar (major apostasy) and will take you outside the fold of Islam—regardless of your intention to vote. It will also nullify all your good deeds (if you have any) and guarantee your seat in Hellfire forever!
Posted by pauldavies on April 22, 2005
Comments
While being a firm supporter to eloctoral reform I also would like to see that when no candidate in your constituency matches your ideas, then the opportunity should be there to cast your vote against a candidate. I also support compulsory voting as in Australia.
Posted by: Brian Hunt at April 26, 2005 10:10 AM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
