The General Election

[pocorina]

Who are you all going to vote for, or who would you all vote for if you could?

Personal i say Go Tories, and if we have another five years of labour I'll go insane. If the lib dems come on the scene I'll probably need prozac.

Take no notice of my ramblings, but please vote Conservative! 

[goose]

Wow. And there was me thinking that artists normally lean towards the Left.

If anyone is interested in the forthcoming UK election (and with the preponderance of people from other countries represented on this forum, I can't see how anyone would be), you might find it useful to compare the policies of the parties before voting:

https://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2005/policyguide/

Yes, I know it's the Guardian (leftist tendencies, non-UK dwellers). But I haven't seen a comparison guide this user-friendly or concise.

best,
Goose

[jas]

Here's where I reveal my supreme lack of knowledge about all things political: what are the main differences between Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem? I usually don't pay much attention to this sort of thing -- I find the whole thing very depressing and not conducive to good faith in the human race -- but I'm beginning to feel it's not something I can really ignore for much longer!

Jas

[Torp]

I knew there was a reason I should have opted for UK citizenship when I had the chance (I was born in England, but the child of US citizens).

I'm just impressed you actually have 3 parties to choose from.  Here, in the US, we have two parties, each setting forth it's most useless candidate every four years.  At least you have 3 potentially useless candidates to choose from.

Jef

[dinosaurtales]

Wow. And there was me thinking that artists normally lean towards the Left.

I think that's generally true.  I am guessing it's because artists are generally emotionally driven rather than logically driven.  I know I will get a ration from this because my music friends think they are logical, but they are not. 

[Torp]

I think that's generally true.  I am guessing it's because artists are generally emotionally driven rather than logically driven.  I know I will get a ration from this because my music friends think they are logical, but they are not. 

I guess I always thought it was because artists have a tendency to question things and to push the edge of perception and understanding.  They are often looking for ways to 'break the rules' and create their own unique voice in whatever their medium of choice.  Conservativism, to me, seems to be essentially the opposite of that approach, more of a clinging to the status quo and traditions.

I guess to get back on topic, if I could, I'd vote for the liberal party.  But that's coming from the perception of being a liberal in the US.  I have no idea what the liberal party is like in the UK.

[Daevren]

There is another party in the UK?

In my countries there now are voices to also have a two party system, or to put in rules to make it more towards a two party system.

I am so very glad we now have 8 different political parties in our parlement. Every citizen should be somewhat accurately repesented.

To me it seems Labor needs to split up. And then I would vote for its left progressive wing.


Its true that most artists seem to be left or progressive oriented, but classical music has a somewhat conservative following. So we have a mix of both here.

I don't think its a emotional vs logical thing. Most of my friends would put me strongly in the latter. I think artists have the rebel and questioning thing like Torp proposes. Looking for new ways and moving forward.

Liberal outside of the US is kind of the opposite meaning. Liberalism is the opposite of socialism. Liberal seems to be used to refer to progressive or left in the US.

[pocorina]

Artists lean towards the left? Well, I always thought it would be the opposite way round. Artists are also mainly right-brained, and so therefore frequently left-handed.

But right-wing policies tend to be harsher, more hierarchical, and i would think that would appeal most to the artist, who tends to take a hard line over issues like capital punishment for instance. Just a thought. Although a lot of musicians are just happy to float around in music and engage in general apathy.

And to whoever asked, we have a lot more than three parties. those are just the main ones. we have a lot, around 15 i should say. But some of those don't have a single seat in parliament 

[lfischer]

The worst thing about the election is that it comes 3 days before I become eligible to vote.

I think that our '3 party system' isn't really a 3 party system as such at the moment, while Labour holds such a majority. The Lib Dems won't win, and won't have any power unless the Tories get a greater vote than expected and Labour is forced to join with other parties, such as the Lib Dems.
Personally I wouldn't vote Tory unless they changed the death taxes free limit from £250k to about a million or something. I'm thinking that either Lib Dem or Labour (without Blair) would be a decent way to vote...

[Daevren]

Artists aren't hard lined, at least not here. They are passionately against the death penalty.

What is right-brained? You mean their right half of the brain is dominant? This may be true for most people. But passionate behavior and logical reasoning both come just as much from the left as from the right part of the brain.

The whole left brain and right brain myth is a gross simplification. Some things that are typical right brain activities, such as dreaming and mental pictures, seem to generate a bit more right brain activity. So you can't divide people based on that.

And even if you do, passionate people will be passionate about different things and for different reasons, while logical people reason on different things and come to different conclusions.

You could split people up that way, but it has nothing to do with dominant brain sides or left or righthandedness. Even while I would identify most right wing politicians as being in the 'left brained' group, I can think of some exceptions. And the other way around too.

When I watch the house of commons I always see Blair getting attacked by his own labour people.

[pocorina]

Artists aren't hard lined, at least not here. They are passionately against the death penalty.

Passionately against the death penalty? Speak for yourself.

[Daevren]

What do you mean?

[Noah]

But some of those don't have a single seat in parliament 

Please don't tell me you'd want these morons from UKIP to be represented in the parliament. Why not the BNP while you're at it?
Go Lib Dems! The Tories are just a farce, they don't have any policy of their own so they spend their time demonising Tony Blair... quite pathetic.

[Daevren]

Who said he wants that.

In my country the christian extremists have two seats. They don't even allow woman as full members.

Now, I don't agree with those people and I think they are morons and maybe they should even be banned because of their views. But I don't want to put in a voting system that  results in a two party system.

I think everyone should be represented in the parlement. I think a threshold like a minimun of, lets say 6 seats, is an undemocratic idea. Even if that means christian extremists in the parlement.

[Bacfokievrahms]

Haha chavs. (I'm American).

[pocorina]

Please don't tell me you'd want these morons from UKIP to be represented in the parliament. Why not the BNP while you're at it?
Go Lib Dems! The Tories are just a farce, they don't have any policy of their own so they spend their time demonising Tony Blair... quite pathetic.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH UKIP? they are nothing like BNP anyway. and the tories DO HAVE policies of their own.

It is quite clear that you are either some sort of socialist crank, or just uneducated. I hope it is the latter. people like you make me hurl

[Daevren]

Whats wrong with being a socialist crank?

And what does being uneducated have to do with it? Also notice that you also didn't give any arguments about why to vote Torries. And you are more guilty of bluntly and immaturely attacking Labour and democratic liberals than Noah.

UKIP, I think, are an one issue party. They are probably a bit populistic too. Maybe thats what is wrong with them.


You created a topic and people reply and you start to attack them. Why not just ask them for their reasons and we can have a debate?

[pocorina]

Fine. Whatever you say. I just agree with the Tories' policies the most, that is all. Labour and Lib Dems have a few ok ideas, but i just generally disagree with their attitudes.

What is wrong with being a socialist crank? because it is exactly this that will bring our country down.

[BoliverAllmon]

There are more than 2 parties in America. There is only 2 majority parties though. There is the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the American Nazi Party, and many others. The Libertarian and Green Parties have been making more splash recently and could become a bigger threat.

boliver

[Noah]

It is quite clear that you are either some sort of socialist crank, or just uneducated. I hope it is the latter. people like you make me hurl

I'm not a socialist, and seeing how you can't have a normal conversation with other people without attacking them like an immature 6 year old, I'm certainly more educated than you are.

Daevren is absolutely right: a populist, one-issue party is exactly what UKIP is.
I heard Michael Howard on the radio this morning, and all I heard him do was criticising Tony Blair. I really can't see how anyone can vote for such a negatively minded person.

I think everyone should be represented in the parlement. I think a threshold like a minimun of, lets say 6 seats, is an undemocratic idea. Even if that means christian extremists in the parlement.

I don't agree with that, I think everyone with whom it's possible to have a reasonably intelligent debate should be represented, something christian extremists clearly can't do. Same with racist parties, there's just no point... after all you wouldn't want the KKK to be represented in the American Congress would you?

[Daevren]

Well, as long as the parties base principles do not conflict with the constitution I think the state has no right to ban a party.

Also notice that this is different from having a threshold to keep out small parties. I know the US system gives big parties a huge advantage. In my country the government always needs a two or even three party conalition in the parlement to get a majority.

I was talking about the SGP in Holland, they have 2 seats in a 150 seat parlement. Their voters always vote. So they do believe in democracy. They are not like american christian extremists. Maybe other people wouldn't call them extremist.  But they do not allow woman as full members because of the bible.

But debate may be possible with rasist or undemocratic people. If you have alot of people in your country that support ideas that conflict with the constitution you have a problem. In Belgium they had a big nationalistic semi-racist party. All other political parties ignored them. They got alot of votes in some places. Ignoring them didn't seem to work. Then the party was banned and now the same people made a new party with a less harsher party program. The problem continues.

We had a few crack pot people in our parlement. For some reason they never managed to hold on to their seats.

[Noah]

In Belgium they had a big nationalistic semi-racist party. All other political parties ignored them. They got alot of votes in some places. Ignoring them didn't seem to work. Then the party was banned and now the same people made a new party with a less harsher party program. The problem continues.

You're talking about the Vlaams Blok/ now Vlaams Belang; I do think that banning the party was the right thing to do, even if evidently it hasn't made much of an effect on them and their supporters, at least it sent out a clear message that their kind of xenophobic crap is just not acceptable. If the other parties had formed a coalition with that party to form a government it would not have had any credibility. I just think everything must be done to prevent such people to get to power. Of course you might call that undemocratic that someone gets to decide that being xenophobic is not right, but then since xenophobia is a threat to democracy, I think you have to take a decision and do something at some point... you can't just stay there and allow them to use public money to spread their dangerous racist ideas in the name of democracy.

[Daevren]

Yes, that party. I am not saying it is an example of a party that shouldn't have been banned. It is a nice example of a party with a big following in some places. I heard that they were so big locally that making a coalition without them was really hard.

All major belgium parties agreed on a cordon sanitare around vlaams blok. This didn't just mean not making a colation with them. It means not even talking about them, having a debate with them, adressing their point etc. This did noting to reduce their votes.

I think they banned/almost banned a neo-nazi party in germany that got alot of votes in some places in east germany.