General Election 2010

And in any case, in the case of Labour, no one needs to convince anyone that they are dick wads.
This is just a kind of lazy prejudice, which it is fashionable to affect. I think it's based very much on the fact that Labour have been in power for 13 years, and people just like to hate whoever's in power. The reason I have a problem with it is a) Labour's heart is in the right place and it has done a lot of good for this country (minimum wage, reform of house of lords, peace deal in NI, devolution, Human Rights Act, Freedom of Info Act, Sure Start, etc*) b) it does the Tories'/Right wing press' work for them.

*Compare that list of achievements with your glib use of the term 'dick wads', then consider if you've really thought through your assessment of the last few years.

Peace in NI, really.

We can rationalise this all we wish, but at the end of the day what is important is the actual result in the real word.

We might arrive at the death of 10,000 factory workers due to some legislation under the Conservatives and we might arrive at the death of 10,000 factory workers due to some legislation under New Labour - and there will always be people who argue that this policy (let's suppose a hypothetical reduction in worker safety) came from a different, more benign, place with New Labour and it came from a more nefarious place when put forward by the Conservatives.

I agree that the actual result in the real world is important, but I think you are deliberately or otherwise attacking a straw man. The argument I was making is that, in the context of all of their policies, Labour is less susceptible to religious influence than the Conservative party. Probably.

New Labour may be a jolly village green kinda religious party (something I don't agree with, but will let that go for now), but the results are what matter, thousands of schools and millions of children handed over to the church, 100,000 of our children in madrassas alone, a Prime Minister who believed he was telepathically communicating with the creator of the universe, taking advice on such issue as embarking on a war in the Middle East.

Agreed, but you are trying to argue about the comparison between the two parties without actually attempting to quantify the degree to which both are religious / susceptible to religious influence. And, despite being a committed athiest, I'm wary of ascribing all of the blame for the Iraq war to Tony's faith.

I can see only civil partnerships and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill here (and related Tory embarrassment).

What else did you want?

I am sure we could find example like this in any administration, as we could find collusion in torture, removal of civil rights, expansion of police powers, prosecuting illegal wars and so on.

I don't see what any of the examples you give have to do with social conservatism. If you can find examples of Labour embracing [culturally] conservative values I would be interested in seeing them.

My own view of New Labour is of a highly collectivist, controlling, illiberal, authoritarian, statist party, with their, seemingly never ending, assault on our freedoms as their own embodiment of social conservatism.

I'm with you up until "as their own embodiment of social conservatism". I don't see how assaulting long-held freedoms is in any way conservative. I think the "modern thinking" "post-liberal consensus" is quite a radical change (for the worst).

We could get overly dramatic and do the whole Orwelain, police/surveillance state thing, but even without going down that route it's not controversial to say that New Labour have constructed the most authoritarian state since Word War II.

Authoritarianism != conservatism, however much we may dislike both.

I've mainly tried to stay out of this thread because it depresses me too much, and I know it has been suggested before, but howbout everyone just agrees to not vote Tory tomorrow? OK cheers.

Unfortunately, (and as I'm sure you know) that's not how the electoral system works. That's just likely to guarantee a Conservative majority. Oh joy.

This is just a kind of lazy prejudice, which it is fashionable to affect. I think it's based very much on the fact that Labour have been in power for 13 years, and people just like to hate whoever's in power. The reason I have a problem with it is a) Labour's heart is in the right place and it has done a lot of good for this country (minimum wage, reform of house of lords, peace deal in NI, devolution, Human Rights Act, Freedom of Info Act, Sure Start, etc*) b) it does the Tories'/Right wing press' work for them.

*Compare that list of achievements with your glib use of the term 'dick wads', then consider if you've really thought through your assessment of the last few years.

Yes. Tony Blair. What a great guy. Thanks for the thousands of dead people, Tony. Really, thanks. But! On the bright side, you gave us minimum wage!

Minimum wage? Have you tried working for minimum wage in London? A "living wage" is something to be proud of.

Maybe New Labour is the type of party you're happy with. It's not the type I am. Dick. Wads.

do you even get to vote?

No.

Actually, yeah. But I'm not going to use it in any meaningful way.

nice, good tactic.

Bill is going to vote Tory.

I believe in Nick. I find David Cameron very disingenuous. I think labour need a new leader.

Fucking stupid voteforpolicies website.. went through the whole thing and then it failed to render the fucking results. Fuck you and fuck your election. I'm playing fucking hang man on the ballot paper.

I heard Labour's gone mint recently though

I had been meaning to post a response to this but hadn't got around to writing it. Then I read this article, which I think more or less sets out the massive differences between the parties. Freedland is no Labour tribalist, but he is a progressive, liberal journalist and invariably worth reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/05/1983-cameron-victory-kinnocks-words

erm, posts 775 and 776^

sorry, should have acknowledged you'd posted about it before. Just wanted to link to whole article, which I found a powerful description of the parties' differences.

the thought of david cameron smugly claiming victory on friday makes me want to slit my wrists.

I seriously can't bring myself to vote for Cleggerown.

Plus voting for an independent seems ridiculous.

...so what's left??? Is it ballot-spoiling time?

Because no matter how I justify it to myself it still seems like a moronic idea.

the thought of david cameron smugly claiming victory on friday makes me want to slit my wrists.

The thought of everyone trying to figure out who's going to form the government on Friday makes me smile.

Actually - question: there are enough seats for a party to form a minority government. Does that party have to fall/have a vote of no confidence pulled on it before a coalition can be put in place, or can the leader of the coalition ask the Queen to be PM ASAP?

I seriously can't bring myself to vote for Cleggerown.

Plus voting for an independent seems ridiculous.

...so what's left??? Is it ballot-spoiling time?

Because no matter how I justify it to myself it still seems like a moronic idea.

I can't understand why you would think it's moronic. If the party you vote for does not get elected, you have, for all intents and purposes, spoiled your ballot.

You may disagree, but moronic?

Actually - question: there are enough seats for a party to form a minority government. Does that party have to fall/have a vote of no confidence pulled on it before a coalition can be put in place, or can the leader of the coalition ask the Queen to be PM ASAP?

the hansard society published a very long, detailed paper on what happens with a hung parliment. traditionally, the incumbent pm (brown) gets first option to try to form a coalition government. if he can't form one by the time parliment meets for the first time, the opposition party with the most votes becomes the government. it's unlikely that a tory minority government will last for very long without a vote of no confidence though.

there's no precedent to the party with the most votes but not a majority and who weren't the previous government claiming victory straight away.

Horatio, I was with you on the whole idea a few days ago, but I can't help but feel that it's merely an ineffective gesture. I'd love to be convinced.

If the party you vote for does not get elected, you have, for all intents and purposes, spoiled your ballot.

for god's sake, this election is too fucking important to spoil your ballot. if you don't agree with the way that votes are currently counted, at least vote for a party that will reform that.

your vote will count towards who is, for example, the next most popular candidate in your constituency, and will therefore affect how people vote come the next election when they look at the share of votes last time. Plus, in the discussions that will take place in the next few days about popular vote vs number of seats, all votes will count equally.

Also, voting is a right that has been hard won, and is not available to all in the world.

your vote will count towards who is, for example, the next most popular candidate in your constituency, and will therefore affect how people vote come the next election when they look at the share of votes last time. Plus, in the discussions that will take place in the next few days about popular vote vs number of seats, all votes will count equally.

Also, voting is a right that has been hard won, and is not available to all in the world.

Voting for the guy who came in second place doesn't affect policy.

In the talk about popular vote vs number of seats I hope to also see some talk about number of spoiled ballots.

And you're right - voting is a right other's don't have, and shouldn't be taken lightly, etc.. That's why spoiling is more responsible than abstaining.

If anyone needs a reason to not vote Tory: http://johannhari.com//2010/05/05/welcome-to-cameron-land?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Hari+Social+Media

a ballot that's spoiled accidentally is counted the same as a ballot that's spoiled on purpose. spoiled ballots mean absolutely nothing.