Lost for words, or just an answer?HomeBritPolitics by Mike Cunningham August 8, 2012 18 1 min 10 yrs Tweet Again and again, from an annoyed Gillian Duffy to a sick and distraught ‘Anna‘, politicians like Brown and Cameron just do not have the answers to questions which are upmost in the real Public’s mind! Click to rate this post![Total: 0 Average: 0] BritPolitics Broken Britain Post navigation Previous postNext post 18 thoughts on “Lost for words, or just an answer?” If that is the case why do the real public keep voting for them? Seamus, Now why ask us if a smart fella like yourself cannot fathom it out? Is it a choice between bad apples, or rotten apples? the difference is so small as to make little difference, both are inedible. Similarly with political parties. As the voter turn-out diminishes, election by election, it will eventually dawn on someone that ‘democracy’ isn’t working, and that it has been so corrupted so that it fails to be in anyway representative of a general consensus, and instead panders to small ‘special interest’ groups who, it would appear, have more influence than any constituent MP or group of the same. As Blair and Major so ably demonstrated, there are now much bigger ‘fish to fry’ than merely being the PM or a cabinet minister of a declining once great nation. It was a rhetorical question Ernest. People vote on issues that matter to them. If you really care about leaving the EU, more than any other issue, then you are most likely not going to vote for the Liberal Democrats. If you are totally opposed to immigration on the scale it has been over the past 15 years then you are probably not going to vote Labour. Voter turnout diminishes for a variety of reasons. Part of it is public apathy with the system, part of it is the problems associated with FPTP electoral system, part of it is shear unadulterated laziness. The fact is though that of those who do vote they vote on the issues that matter to them. And politicians know this. If a proposal will win them votes most politicians will go for it. And so while people may feel strongly about issues, may have an opinion one way or the other on Europe, Immigration, Gays, Defence, the Death Penalty etc when it comes to casting a vote do people rarely vote on those issues. If they really cared about them then they would change there vote on them. Seamus, Rhetorical or not, I knew you really knew the answer all along… That electoral promises are rarely kept does make it rather difficult to decide where to cast your vote. ‘If they really cared about them then they would change there vote on them.’ – and that would still make little difference to the outcome. Labour’s vote is ‘bought and paid for’, and the Tories know this, and usually end up some ineffective programme that appeals to few and usually costs them votes. With so many contentious issues, spread evenly between parties, it makes little difference who one votes for. It’s a game they play where politics are put above the country’s best interests. As I mentioned earlier, they are playing for bigger stakes than are on offer at Westminster. Labour’s vote is bought and paid for? Public sector workers make up about 10% of the UK. Benefits claimants make up a similar number. If all of them backed the Labour Party that would be about 20%. Labour is currently polling at over 40%. Your numbers don’t add up Ernest. The reason people vote for the Labour Party is for the same reason that people vote for the Conservatives. Because they agree with them on the policies that matter. What contentious issues do the majority of people disagree with all of the main parties on? Labour’s vote is bought and paid for, with public money. Yes there’s your rump 20%. Add in deeply committed ideological loonies say 10% a bit of tactical voting, partners of same. 40% sorted. And that is assuming that all people who get benefits vote Labour (which no one has been able to prove) and that all people who work in the public sector vote Labour (again something that no one has been able to prove). I forget did we include the plethora of so called ‘British Citizens’ imported from third world shyte holes to multi culturally enrich this ‘hideously white’ country? They vote en bloc for Labour. Especially in such wonderfully diverse areas such as Tower Hamlets. Why the postal voting arrangements are so efficient there that up to fifty ‘residents’ in a single one bedroom flat all vote Labour, whether they know it or not and even if they happen not to exist (aee Andrew Gilligans expose’. With charmingly familiar voting practices that according to a British Judge would disgrace a Banana republic. Throw in Gerrymandering rigged constituency boundaries and it’s a miracle that Ed ‘President for Life’ ‘Dada’ Millibanana isn’t running the nation. Labour may not be 100% corrupt but they sure stink a lot. Anyway back on topic..I agree 100% with the caller. We prioritise looking after everyone else on the planet at our own expense. Truly we must be mad. I read that now we are refitting Nigerian and Jamaican Prisons to make them nicer places to be. £3m more down the crapper. How many Brits eyeseght would that have saved? Utterly disgraceful. Ca-moron is continuity Brown. All I can say is I didn’t vote for him or his party. It depends what you mean in bloc. Recent estmiates put the amount of ethnic minority support for the Labour Party at 65% at the 2010 General Election. That is a high number but there are a huge number of reasons for that not least the fact that ethnic minorities the world over tend to back left wing parties whether they are recent immigrant populations or not. Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities tend to live in large cities which also tend to vote for Labour. How are the boundaries gerrymandered? They are set by a non-partisan commission? Notional results from 2005 with the 2010 boundaries had already lost the Labour Party 7 seats by the time the 2010 General Election came around. Seamus, I would suggest that it is your figures that are, at best, incorrect, if not actully suffering from numerical inexactitude. I take it you are not including NHS employees in your figure for the public sector. As for contentious issues, – the EU referendum, and the electoral promise thereof, – I know you prefer calling it a referendum rather than a vote. I see that even Blair has changed his tune on that one. Excessive immigration, which has reduced the UK to the level of getting a global ‘gold’ for the ‘Best refugee camp’, and the absolute lie that we allow immigration because we are short of workers, even though we have 3 million indigenous unemployed. The ridiculous implementation of Human Rights legislation, and its effect on our judiciary, and other aspects of life as we used to know it. And are you suggesting that all NHS workers vote for the Labour Party? I now plenty of people who work in the NHS Ernest and I don’t think any of them voted Labour at the last election. The EU Referendum. There was no election promise, not even the Tories promised an in-out referendum at the last election. Additionally people had a choice to vote for parties opposed to the European Union and favouring withdrawal. The main party advocating it got 3%. This is an issue that only a small number of people really care about. Other people have more pressing concerns when it comes to politics. Immigration. Immigration is a major issue which is why all three of the parties tightened immigration at their last election and will probably do so again at the next election. Human Rights Act. The Tories did have a repeal of the HRA in their manifesto but both Labour and the Liberals had protections of it in theirs. This is an important issue but it isn’t clear that there is overwhelming public opinion one way or the other. Most people feel it goes to far but most people also support the rights contained in the HRA. Seamus, Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. As a parting shot, I do think that the right to vote should depend on something more substantial than a persons age. To elect what are supposed to be our ‘Leaders’, I do think there should be some proof of intellectual competence, of achievement or commitment by those doing the voting. To grant convicted criminals a vote, is about as stupid and vacuous an idea that anyone could come up with, it demeans all those who have made the commitment to lead a civilsed lifestyle, which is, I’m sure we both hope, is a majority of the population. The very fact that the idea has even been mooted as a ‘human right’ indicates just how little value politicians place on the individual and their vote, and is perhaps one of the reasons why so many people feel disenfranchised under the present sysytem. Firstly, I agree that criminals shouldn’t have the vote. I would also say that most politicians share that belief and Parliament actually continues to block the ability of prisoners to vote. The difficulty with your other suggestion is simple. The people you would remove the vote from, those who you feel don’t have the intellectual competence, or achievement or commitment, are still bound by the laws passed by Parliament. It goes right to heart of democracy that if you have to keep society’s laws you should at least have a say in what those laws are. Seamus, Your last sentence opens the door, or perhaps lifts the lid, on a Pandora’s box and certainly conflicts with certain aspects of immigration and the integration of immigrants, who while having passports and a right to vote, are unwilling to obey even some of our most basic laws. Such as? David Cameron has been asked by a cancer sufferer to explain why the Government is spending billions on overseas aid when the NHS cannot fund the life-saving drugs she needs. Again and again, from an annoyed Gillian Duffy to a sick and distraught ‘Anna‘, politicians like Brown and Cameron just do not have the answers to questions which are upmost in the real Public’s mind! Because, nothing, and I mean nothing, comes before ‘The agenda’ Hmmm… it’s quiet. Here’s Anthony Sutton explaining how Wall Street arranged for the victory of the Bolsheviks and how history has been debased. I didn’t know that American troops were in Siberia to secure the trans-Siberian railway for the Reds. Comments are closed.