Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Elections | |
Author: David (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 13:22:07 12/23/04 Thu In reply to: Ed Harris (UK) 's message, "Infandum... iubes renovare dolorem" on 11:10:46 12/23/04 Thu Well, I am also a Tory (or Liberal in Australia), I believe strongly in the power of the free market and also institutions such as the Monarchy. There are a number of policy issues where I disagree with our government, however, particulary over our relationship with the US and climate change. If I lived in the UK, I imagine I would vote Tory. My preferred party would be UKIP but under your absurd voting system you are essentially wasting your vote or giving it to Tony Blair by voting for such as party. The UK needs to adopt preferential voting as is used in Australia. I don't have anything against your non-compulsary voting though. I find the idea of identity cards disturbing. In my opinion the Tory party should be looking to protect the freedom of the individual in society rather than allowing greater government control over our lives. I see fail to see how identity cards would reduce crime or terrorism. They are the type of action that should only be used in extreme circumstances such as World War II. The idea of an opposition mimicking an government just wins support for the government. It is all, of course, about 'moving to the middle', a recipe inflicted on all losing parties. Before October 9 here everyone agreed that the heroic Latham had dragged his party to the 'middle'. No, he spoke over the heads of the political class direct to those living in marginal constituencies in the same way of the government. When that failed disastrously, it turned out he hadn't found the 'middle' after all. Personally, I am a fan of the two-party system we have in Australia and elsewhere. Three party politics would likely be far less stable and democratic. If you are very unhappy with Labour you should vote for the Tories (or vice-versa). There is an interesting quote on the Liberal Democrat's website: "We Liberal Democrats prize freedom of the individual, underpinned by a safety net for the vulnerable, in our society. We are defenders of the public services, free at the point of use. We are internationalist in outlook – pro UN, pro Commonwealth and pro Europe. Our Liberal background makes us wary of an over-mighty state and dedicated to civil liberties. We are enthusiasts for the green agenda." If you take out the pro-Europe and free public services nonsense, they almost seem like a party I would consider voting for. Although in practice they are probably similar to a bunch of lunatics known here as the "Australian Democrats" who will do or say anything other than their beliefs to get elected rather than be motivated by ideology, vision or genuine belief. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Depends on which services you are talking about | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:44:50 12/23/04 Thu Basic health? Decent education? Legal aid? I have no problem at all with funding those out of our taxes. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The voting system in Canada is the same as in the UK and yes, I vote Tory | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:52:43 12/23/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Democratic services... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:33:42 12/23/04 Thu The only state-funded services which I use are the roads and the military (well, the latter I 'use' in the sense that I benefit from it along with everyone else). Even in state television, the government is cut out of the equation since we pay our license fee directly to Auntie. But about political parties - David's assessment of the Lib Dems is quite right. Their rhetoric differs according to whether they are pitching for disaffected socialists or disaffected Tories. At the moment, they're going for the Tories' jugular, which means a lot of rhetoric about free individuals, a limited State etc. A couple of years back, they were after Labour marginals, which meant a lot of garbage about massive public sector spending financed by taxing those rich bastards, along with the usual peacenik nonsense and anti-Toff gestures which for some reason they associate with 'ordinary people'. This is a luxury which they can afford, since, as a third party, they have never been in government, and are not likely to be in the near or medium future, so none of us can hold their record up against their rhetoric. I, also, am a great fan of two-party politics. I have seen what a parliament full of dozens of medium-sized parties can do to a country: total political paralysis, economic meltdown, social chaos. Not fun - Forza Berlusconi. There should be two parties, each of which embodying a certain particular political attitude (or 'philosophy' if we're being grandiose) rather than this or that particular set of policies. In the 19th Century, this meant anarcho-capitalist (Liberal) as against paternalist-protectivist (Conservative). Through the 20th Century, this has shifted to collectivist (Socialist) as against individualist (Tory). The individual voter choses between which of these attitudes he would like to see prevalent in Westminster, and votes accordingly. The particular policies will change over time according to transient circumstances, but this need not affect one's political allegiance, and removes the need for a 3rd party. It also allows for the existence of single-issue protest-vote parties, such as the SNP or UKIP. The problem at the moment is that, whereas Labour has kept its 'attitude' whilst effecting to conceal it, the Tories have lost theirs in a feeble attempt to widen their support base. Natural Conservatives like me and millions of others have nowhere to go except UKIP, which, as you rightly point out, is making a third Blair term more rather than less likely. Still, the hope is that Howard, Letwin and Co will be less diffident about having proper Conservative policies if they are actually elected. I'll drink to that... As for our 'absurd' voting system... the party which would benefit most electorally would be the Tories (at the moment Labour needs something like 43% to get a majority, whereas the Tories need almost 49%, because of seat distribution - note that we have Proportional Representation in Euro Elections and the Conservatives wiped the floor with everyone), but the Tories are the most allergic to electoral reform in spite of this. We are deeply uncomfortable about two things: firstly, we hate coalitions, which would be the inevitable result of abandoning First Past the Post voting; secondly, we like to think that we are voting for the person not the party, which would be impossible under Proportional or even Preferential Voting, and our representatives would be forced upon us by corrupt party executives (not least our own, since Conservative Central Office is one of the greatest impediments to the Tories' electoral prospects, although hopefully Lynton Crosby will do something about that. Also, its bickering, nepotism and corruption makes the Labour Party machine look like a vicar's tea party). There's always hope - under the current system, we've been the most successful party in our history, even in the great age of socialism. Presumably it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we do it again. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: abandoning FPTP does not result in coalitions or loss of the "personal" vote! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:30:13 12/23/04 Thu Australia gets clear results every time, and of course we vote for a person. What are you talking about? Preferential voting gives you the best of both worlds. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:47:23 12/23/04 Thu ... you still won't sell it to the Tories. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Isn't the Australian Government a coalition? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:46:17 12/23/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Coalition | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:19:36 12/24/04 Fri Yes, but our Liberal/National Party coalition is nothing like what a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would be like in Britain. Both parties here are essentially the same thing, they work together in both opposition and government and these days they never really have any disagreements. Their policy going into elections are exactly the same. Neither party would ever form a coalition with the ALP or another party, it is really just one party under two different names. Our preferential system was originally introduced to prevent conservative candidates splitting the Tory vote and allowing electorates to go to Labor where this would otherwise not be the case. It still comes into effect sometimes, however most electorates at the last election were decided on primary vote alone. The National party is slowly dying anyway and will probably be absorbed by the Liberals over the next 20-30 years. The electorates held by all its past leaders over the past 20-30 years have been lost. http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/howpreferenceswork.htm http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/prefhistory.htm [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Liberal / National coalition | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:40:11 12/24/04 Fri I said that our voting system always gives a clear result, and it does, because voters always know that the Liberals and Nationals will work together. It is never a matter of seeing how the numbers fall out then trying to form a coalition: the coalition is always there in advance. Even when the Libs have a majority in their own right, they form governemnt with the Nationals, just out of habit. Nothing could be more stable. There have been three Prime Ministers from the National Party (or Country Party, as it then was), because the leader of the Nats is always deputy PM, so if the boss dies or quits, the Nat gets a month or so of glory before the Libs sort themselves out and choose a new leader. In fact, it is not just the Libs and the Nats: there is also the Country Liberal Party, which only exists in the Northern Territory. They are always part of the coalition too. In fact, given the stat-based nature of the Liberal Party, you could say that they are in fact separate parties for each state, so even if you had a purely "Liberal" government, it would still be a coalition of sorts in practice, because the Liberal Party of Victoria would be working together with the Liberal Party of New South Wales, the Liberal Party of Tasmania, and so on. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |