Is it time to give the three main parties a kicking?

[Jim Graham]

Lets face it. All three main parties are in the hands of big business. That is why the country is in the mess it is in. Will you take a chance and vote for someone different in May?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2132919/Bankers-drowning-money-Out-touch-politicians-Unaccountable-quangocrats-Not-generations-run-Britain-far-removed-common-man.html

 

 

The clever thing to do with local elections is try and match the council to the government. That's because Governments always look after their own with resources.

 

The very nice but very dim people of Sheffield have a suicidal view of local politics to make sure they get the least of everything. When the Tories were in before they all voted Labour. When Labour were in we had a Lib Dem council. Now that the Lib Dems have power Sheffield puts in a Labour council. Frankly, you deserve all you get.............................nothing.

[tinfoilhat]

My last general election vote went to the libs, mainly as an alternative to the other two after they had proved that they simply cannot be trusted.

 

I'd like to see party politics abolished altogether, it simply doesn't work.

 

Political parties are vulnerable to corruption and fail to represent their electorates wishes, members of parliament should represent the people who put them where they are and the only alliance they should be forming is the government - no one else should be telling them what to think.

 

This is a well written post and I'm loath to take it apart but.....

 

It's all wrong. Parties, love them or hate them, have certain albeit unclear cheques and balances. One man doesnt. I could go into his surgery and say "here's a big bag of money - vote this way". He might he might not. He will, for good or for bad, follow a 3 line whip.

 

The alliance thing is good in practice but are you really going to see Dennis skinner agree with Cameron over much ? Take politics away you have a gruff ex-miner and a former public schoolboy. No common ground. If you reduced to about 100 mps you might get q chance but then a bought mp would carry more weight. fewer mps might be a good idea though.

 

I can't see much of an improvement in what we've got already sadly. You could have a nuclear war and the same sort of self serving, loud ego maniacs would emerge out of the rubble and start again. In years gone by governments would go to war or oppress the masses. No longer an option in the west we can see it all for what it is. A big mess nobody in Europe knows how to fix.

[southcoast]

Maybe its time to change the voting system,after all more and more are not voting and politicians are held in contempt.

[esme]

Maybe its time to change the voting system,after all more and more are not voting and politicians are held in contempt.

Ah but I believe the politicians see this as voter apathy, the electorate can't be bothered to tell them otherwise so the politicians can do as they like.

 

Politicians apparently don't see this not voting thing as any kind of protest or a reaction to the perceived lack of any alternative.

 

After all if you don't want to vote for any of the available candidates you can always stand for office yourself, providing you can stump up the deposit, which you will probably lose if you can't find the time to campaign or drum up the necessary support.

 

So if you are working full time just to put a roof over your head and food on the table then this option is pretty much closed to you.

 

It would appear the thinking is that as this alternative exists, then if you don't vote, it must be apathy that prevents you and you will acquiesce meekly to whoever those who do vote put in power.

 

Despite it being such a monumental effort to engage with this alternative that for all practical purposes it is not viable.

[Stoatwobbler]

The way I see it, ALL politicians need a good kick up the ballot box on a frequent basis.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The saying is that Oppositions never win elections; it's Governments that lose them.

[Darth Vader]

None of the three parties serve the interests of the general population of this country anymore. So who do you vote for?

 

I like the idea of the anti-austerity party as there is obviously no need for cuts and it is just a stick to beat the general population further with, whilst footballers and other high earners are several thousand pounds a week better off with the recent tax breaks the rich have been given by the Tories and the Lib Dems.

[esme]

None of the other parties serve the interests of the country either, all the parties have their own private agendas which serve to make life better for the party members and if the country benefits as a result of these agendas then it's serendipitous.

 

Not one politician gives a damn about anyone who disagrees with them, not one politician wants a real democracy where they actually have to debate issues and determine what is right with reason.

 

Politicians just want to be in charge and have their decisions implemented, and anyone who disagrees with those decisions is wrong and can be ignored as far as they are concerned.

 

This is why Politicians always want a clear majority in the house, so they can steamroller decisions through without debate.

 

Rubber stamp politics, they don't actually have to do anything except turn up and take the money, the handful of people in the cabinet make the decisions and everything else is just entertainment for the masses.

 

This is why the the idea of a coalition caused so much distress after the last election.

 

Not because it was going to be lib-con or lab-lib or some other flavour, and whoever got excluded would whinge about the coalition not being elected and therefore not having a mandate.

 

But because there was no clear majority, and politicians of different parties would have to negotiate with each other, instead of simply bulldozing legislation handed down from the cabinet through the house, like they usually do.

 

Politicians would actually have to work instead of just turn up and vote the way the whip told them to.

 

So whoever you vote for, if they are part of a party you can forget them putting the country first, the party comes first, then themselves and come election time they might remember the electorate exists and throw out a few populist phrases to keep people happy and voting for them

[Anna B]

Ah but I believe the politicians see this as voter apathy, the electorate can't be bothered to tell them otherwise so the politicians can do as they like.

 

Politicians apparently don't see this not voting thing as any kind of protest or a reaction to the perceived lack of any alternative.

 

After all if you don't want to vote for any of the available candidates you can always stand for office yourself, providing you can stump up the deposit, which you will probably lose if you can't find the time to campaign or drum up the necessary support.

 

So if you are working full time just to put a roof over your head and food on the table then this option is pretty much closed to you.

 

It would appear the thinking is that as this alternative exists, then if you don't vote, it must be apathy that prevents you and you will acquiesce meekly to whoever those who do vote put in power.

 

Despite it being such a monumental effort to engage with this alternative that for all practical purposes it is not viable.

 

That's why I think There should be a 'non of the above' box on every ballot paper. At least then they might be able to measure public discontent.

 

Incidently, there's probably never been a better time for standing as an independent.

[esme]

apart from existing party names "None of the above" is not a name you can register as a party name http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107694/to-names-rp.pdf page 9