The Wasted Vote
Discussion
We've heard a lot about wasted votes recently, and the Tories are still banging that drum in the wake of the Eastleigh flop.
If you accept the premise that the purpose of voting is to collectively decide on the policy then this argument falls down, because limiting yourself to only the three main parties provides no feedback at all as to what is wrong with those main parties. It simply endorses them relative to each other.
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties. From Scottish devolution to the rise of the green movement and now to the smaller state post EU agenda being pushed by UKIP.
The real wasted vote is the one that unthinkingly endorses Cameron, Milliband or Clegg. That ticks the box of one candidate with the negative intention of keeping the other guy out.
If you accept the premise that the purpose of voting is to collectively decide on the policy then this argument falls down, because limiting yourself to only the three main parties provides no feedback at all as to what is wrong with those main parties. It simply endorses them relative to each other.
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties. From Scottish devolution to the rise of the green movement and now to the smaller state post EU agenda being pushed by UKIP.
The real wasted vote is the one that unthinkingly endorses Cameron, Milliband or Clegg. That ticks the box of one candidate with the negative intention of keeping the other guy out.
Ozzie Osmond said:
AJS- said:
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties.
The biggest development by far was the arrival of New Labour with a clear "win" at election. They inherited an economy in very good health from John Major's government. New Labour's legacy is a vast public sector, failures of regulation, more people on benefits and massive borrowings for the country. In comparison with this all other changes are IMO trivial.Mon Ami Mate
As a small state libertarian, what should I be pleased with that the coalition has achieved? Keeping Labour out doesn't cut it.
As to where I would rather start from in 2015 - a Tory party that has been utterly decimated by UKIP and finally realises that they can not ignore their core voters to chase their perceived centre ground sounds good to me. Yes we would have a Labour government for a few years but so what? What real difference would it make?
As a small state libertarian, what should I be pleased with that the coalition has achieved? Keeping Labour out doesn't cut it.
As to where I would rather start from in 2015 - a Tory party that has been utterly decimated by UKIP and finally realises that they can not ignore their core voters to chase their perceived centre ground sounds good to me. Yes we would have a Labour government for a few years but so what? What real difference would it make?
REALIST123 said:
This, with the reservation that a few years may be all the Labour Party needs to put us irretrievably down the toilet.
They also need the collusion of a timid Tory party who dare not attack them on the things they do worst because the Tories themselves wouldn't do anything different. It has worked a charm for them over the last 20 years and looks set to continue doing so into the 2020s.Mon Ami Mate said:
Hug a hoodie was taken completely out of context. A significant number of centrists believe in the green nonsense. To attract their votes and actually get voted in it was necessary to appeal to them.
So when are they going to start disproving it then?Conservative Party's own website said:
Action to date
• We have set up 'UK Green Investments' to start investing now ahead of the establishment of the Green Investment Bank.
• We have published ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions, setting an example to our competitors in Europe. However, we will not put British industry at risk, so we will revisit the targets we have set if other countries fail to match our ambition.
• At the Durban climate conference in December 2011, we were instrumental in delivering a ground breaking global agreement on climate change. More than 120 countries formed a 'coalition of high ambition' in support of a roadmap to a legally-binding deal, to be in place by 2015.
Planned actions
• By 2015, we will have invested £3 billion of public money in the Green Investment Bank, unleashing a further £15 billion of private investment.
• We will work towards a global deal on climate change to be agreed no later than 2015.
• The Carbon Price Floor will take effect from April 2013, incentivising low-carbon energy.
They're trumpeting their achievements and planning a further an orgy of government spending and regulation domestically and pushing the MMGW agenda globally. The above alone is reason enough for me not to vote for them.• We have set up 'UK Green Investments' to start investing now ahead of the establishment of the Green Investment Bank.
• We have published ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions, setting an example to our competitors in Europe. However, we will not put British industry at risk, so we will revisit the targets we have set if other countries fail to match our ambition.
• At the Durban climate conference in December 2011, we were instrumental in delivering a ground breaking global agreement on climate change. More than 120 countries formed a 'coalition of high ambition' in support of a roadmap to a legally-binding deal, to be in place by 2015.
Planned actions
• By 2015, we will have invested £3 billion of public money in the Green Investment Bank, unleashing a further £15 billion of private investment.
• We will work towards a global deal on climate change to be agreed no later than 2015.
• The Carbon Price Floor will take effect from April 2013, incentivising low-carbon energy.
If you think this is just a bit of window dressing to catch some floating voters I believe you are seriously in denial.
And while I am obviously not a believer in MMGW I don't really think saying any thing that sounds good to get elected is a good way to approach elections in a democracy. Firstly because it's fundamentally dishonest. More pragmatically because it leaves you either having to do a U turn once elected or being bound to carry out the stupid plans you don't believe in because you need to get elected again next time, and all your core voters are stupid.
But that is the whole problem with the modern Conservative party - they simply won't make the case for conservatism.
Countdown said:
Tricky one. Whilst I err towards the latter I do believe a certain amount of the former is required for there to be a fair society.
As I'm sure you're aware, there are plenty of purely capitalist societies in the world where there's no tax and little state interference. Most of them tend to be s
tholes. There needs to be a balance.
Any examples? I would tend to say the closer a country sticks to the model of small, limited government, protecting people's basic rights to liberty and property, the less of a sAs I'm sure you're aware, there are plenty of purely capitalist societies in the world where there's no tax and little state interference. Most of them tend to be s
tholes. There needs to be a balance.t hole it is. I'm thinking Hong Kong, Switzerland type places.Conversely as the government gets bigger and more involved in everything countries tend to become much more s
t hole like - North Korea at the extreme end. It's not so much a balance between big government and no government, as having the right sort of government.
eharding said:
As per the other thread - and I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a different simulation - if we model the huge Eastleigh swing to UKIP at a General Election, the result is a Labour absolute majority.
How much of a swing would it take for a UKIP government? Seriously?
Then a Conservative victory in 2020, with a right wing Tory party committed to EU withdrawal and serious tax and regulation cuts and free of global warming bHow much of a swing would it take for a UKIP government? Seriously?
ks, unopposed by UKIP.If 5 years of Labour is what it takes to get there so be it. I don't see any point in voting for a party who promise to be s
t and still disappoint, because the other party might just be even stter.Wombat3 said:
We won't make it to 2020 in one piece.
Last time we got a Labour Gov't we could afford it. Next time , we can not. The markest wil have zero confidence in Balls in respect of borrowing & deficits etc - he is a dyed-in-the-wool Keynsian when Keynsian economic theory has widely been debunked.
We will be at the IMF within 3 years
Any difficult reform is always met with the response that it might be a good idea but not at this time. Of course we'll make it to 2020 in one piece. We're not going to have a civil war or be lost to famine, pestilence and barbarism by another 5 years of incompetent government that's just ever so slightly left of the Tories. We are however going to slide into irrelevance and terminal decline if we don't tackle the monster of ever expanding government we can't afford.Last time we got a Labour Gov't we could afford it. Next time , we can not. The markest wil have zero confidence in Balls in respect of borrowing & deficits etc - he is a dyed-in-the-wool Keynsian when Keynsian economic theory has widely been debunked.
We will be at the IMF within 3 years
There's so much rubbish being talked by Tories on this thread.
eharding said:
Given what happened between 1997 and 2010, there doesn't seem to be any question of might. If 13 years of Labour government didn't return a hard-right Conservative government, what makes you think another 5 years of Labour would?
Just 5 more years of damage, 5 more years of uncontrolled immigration, 5 more years of reckless spending, and frankly 5 more years to skew the electoral system in their favour.
But then, unless things have changed, you're not actually a UK resident, are you? So thanks for offering to let the rest of us endure another Labour government.
On the first part - there was no possibility of a hard right Conservative government in 2010, so who knows what would have happened if a conservative had been leading the party at that time. To imagine it would have gone the same way as 2001 or 2005 in the circumstances seems strange.Just 5 more years of damage, 5 more years of uncontrolled immigration, 5 more years of reckless spending, and frankly 5 more years to skew the electoral system in their favour.
But then, unless things have changed, you're not actually a UK resident, are you? So thanks for offering to let the rest of us endure another Labour government.
We have all of those ills anyway. We might be getting them at 80% rather than 100% but we're still getting them.
Nothing changed, I still live abroad, I'm still a British citizen, with a vote and an interest. Sometimes seeing things from afar lets you see them a bit more dispassionately, and in their broader context.
Wombat3 said:
Then you should understand, its all about the markets. If the markets stop trusting the UK Government then its Spain/Italy here we come. People who do not believe that the markets could have the country on its knees quicker than you can say "Oh st" do not understand how those things work. Look at the uproar when one little ratings agency rocked the boat ever so slightly.
I also know there's a lot of bullst" do not understand how those things work. Look at the uproar when one little ratings agency rocked the boat ever so slightly.t talked about these things, and a lot of scope for weasel words. "The markets" aren't really interested in what colour tie our Prime Minister wears or how many years experience in government he has, for that matter. And while a drastic political move might cause a ripple, the long term fundamentals are driven by such tangible and measurable things as debt levels, spending and the growth of the economy. Which the coalition is messing up just like Labour did, though granted a little less so.Wombat3 said:
That's what lots of people (to the left) said about Hollande & his tax rates and look where that's going......
The markets are very interested in lots of things - and especially in credibility and intent.
Given the economic constraints we have and the bleeding heart lib Dems the amount of less "fk-uppage" there is is indeed significant from where it was 3 years ago.
So why hasn't France tumbled into an starving and chaotic abyss then? The markets are very interested in lots of things - and especially in credibility and intent.
Given the economic constraints we have and the bleeding heart lib Dems the amount of less "f
k-uppage" there is is indeed significant from where it was 3 years ago.Wombat3 said:
AJS- said:
Wombat3 said:
That's what lots of people (to the left) said about Hollande & his tax rates and look where that's going......
The markets are very interested in lots of things - and especially in credibility and intent.
Given the economic constraints we have and the bleeding heart lib Dems the amount of less "fk-uppage" there is is indeed significant from where it was 3 years ago.
So why hasn't France tumbled into an starving and chaotic abyss then? The markets are very interested in lots of things - and especially in credibility and intent.
Given the economic constraints we have and the bleeding heart lib Dems the amount of less "f
k-uppage" there is is indeed significant from where it was 3 years ago.Wombat3 said:
A sop to the green lobby which won't really change much and something that is "populist" to a degree, but that is also being driven from Brussels.
It is though better than the Tobin tax they really wanted (which would have resulted in the destruction of FS jobs in London, never mind the clipping of a few bonuses)
You'd better tell Tim Yeo that as he seems to think this unilaterally imposed tax will make us uncompetitive with other European countries.It is though better than the Tobin tax they really wanted (which would have resulted in the destruction of FS jobs in London, never mind the clipping of a few bonuses)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...
And he is a Tory too.
It is also, like the fuel tax escalator introduced by John Major's small government libertarian movement in 1993, something that can be ramped up and up by successive governments as a cash cow, so long as this green nonsense continues.
As for the bonus cap, would you actually trumpet that as a success for Cameron? That the completely unelected European Commission "only" managed to cap the amount of bonus that private UK companies can pay their employees, instead of something worse?
It's hardly liberty or death stuff, is it?
Wombat3 said:
We have £120Bn deficit and a national debt of god knows what size and a "crack habit" dependency on public service (free healthcare etc)
I don't like paying more taxes any more than the next bloke, but what are we getting rid of if we don't pay things like fuel duty etc? It will have to be replaced with something else.
Well, EU payments spring immediately to mind. Subsidies to wind farms. I'm sure there's a few other things we could trim here and there in the hundreds of billions of pounds the government spends. I don't like paying more taxes any more than the next bloke, but what are we getting rid of if we don't pay things like fuel duty etc? It will have to be replaced with something else.
As for the bonus cap - is there anything there that couldn't apply in the 1970s? Top rate income tax was 83% in 1979, Thatcher reduced it to 40% over the next 10 years, but the biggest and most dramatic cut was the very first one. And she made a moral, intellectual case for it as well as a pragmatic one, that actually won people over to her side, like UKIP are doing now, rather than a limp wristed apologetic series of excuses as to how it might be better to spend a little bit less than we'd really like to.
Wombat3 said:
Don't disagree with you and in better times ahead I would guess that Bonus cap might quietly disappear. But we have to get there first and it certainly won't disappear under Mili-Balls.
I think you're over complicating it. What you seem to be saying is that Cameron has led a left wing government for 3 years as some kind of a clever ploy to keep out a left wing government. Why not just vote for a right wing party in the first place?Will you vote UKIP in the Euros?
Wombat3 said:
Er no, he has led the governement that the coalition agreement forced him into having. Its far from ideal.
and
Not a chance, and its even more unnecessary with the impending referendum on the table.
So why did he enter into the coalition in the first place? What has he achieved as leader of the Conservative party?and
Not a chance, and its even more unnecessary with the impending referendum on the table.
and
I'm increasingly seeing a sort of political tribalism - my party right or wrong.
Wombat3 said:
He did the best thing he could do under the circumstances.
As I have said, I do not think the Tory party is perfect (far from it) but its a bloody site better than the alternnitive and it has not yet had the opportunity to really get to grips with the problems we face. Perhaps if they were in a position to do so we might actually get somewhere?
Best thing for who? As I have said, I do not think the Tory party is perfect (far from it) but its a bloody site better than the alternnitive and it has not yet had the opportunity to really get to grips with the problems we face. Perhaps if they were in a position to do so we might actually get somewhere?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff