I dont know who to Vote for?

[JsMum]

Is there any website sites that help you decide, I have always voted Labour but I dont think its viable any more, there was a time I was going to go LIb dEMs but I dont know enough about politics, we are run by conservatives at the moment in my area, but I dont know the MP in our area very well, Before I moved I was under Labour and the MP was brilliant.

 

Any advise or how the politics are going to benefit children with sen?

 

I might not VOTE then I cant get it wrong.

 

JsMumxx

 

[Kathryn]

I think everyone should vote, - there are those in so many countries who still can't take this right for granted. Every woman should certainly vote - out of respect for those who fought so damned hard to get us the vote. That's my opinion anyway!

 

This is a site which will tell you who is standing in your area. http://www.yournextmp.com/

 

And here is a site I like: it gives good basic info about the goings on in Westminster, and you can track what your own MP has been doing, saying and voting on. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

 

K x

 

 

[justine1]

Agree with Kathryn,please do vote.I am voting for the first time ever at age 27.This is because I moved to the UK at 19,so had never had the chance to vote in the country where I was born.Then I couldnt vote here as I wasnt a citizen until 2007.Then I moved alot and only got regiistered to vote last November.

 

So I am so excited I have known for 4years who to vote for when the time would come and havent changed my mind

[KezT]

My personal opinion - the Tories education plans are a whitewash for "we will remove all SEN budgets, and if your child can not cope, tell you to start your own school then". Regardless of anything else the parties have to say, the education policies make me want to do anything possible to keep Cameron out of no. 10. I'm old enough to remember the 80's, and the slashed school budgets, decrepid buildings, teachers strikes, closure of special schools and removal of SEN support. With the finances in the mess they are currently in, and the Tories U-turn on the NHS (which I actually belive is somethingCameron does believe in), the cuts will have to come - and if they come in education as in the Tory manifesto, all our kids will suffer.

 

Personally, I am tactically voting this time. I don't approve, but don't want to waste my vote - and if Cameron got a 1 person majority, by one vote (which it seems tight enough to be possible this timne) I could never forgive myself;)

[dana]

Hi,

I agree with Kez and don't trust Cameron at all. I sincerely hope he will never come to power because, although I am not particularly fond of Labour neither, if Tories come to power now it will be disaster for the whole economy. I am afraid even to think what would it mean for our children. This is not so much beacuse they are Tories but they look to me totaly incompetent, both Cameron and Osborn. That's just my opinion anyway.

 

Danaxxx

[baddad]

I'm voting for the 'don't knows' and predicting a resounding victory

I figure if we do get in we'll at least 'stop digging', which I think is good policy whether you find yourself or a whole country up to their necks in it

Personally, I think the country went to the dogs when they gave in to those silly bints lobbing themselves under racehorses and gave wimmin the vote

 

I AM JOKING! Down, Kathryn, down!

i am, of course, voting for Winston Stimpson (his mum put him in the washing machine you know, he almost drowned...)

 

[Canopus]

The effectiveness of who you vote for depends on the constituency you live in. A surprisingly large proportion of people I have met aren't aware of this and think that votes for a particular party count equally no matter where you live and the party which gets the most votes wins.

 

I happen to be the type who votes for what they believe in rather than voting for the lesser of two evils.

[barefoot wend]

I like our local MP so tend to vote for her on local issues. I'm not sure that she belongs to the party I'd be inclined to vote for nationally but I feel better as she is also the person who raised the autism bill.

 

I'm looking forward to the TV debates - Gordon with that horrible smile that appears at totally inappropriate moments, Daaaave who'll probably roll up his shirt sleeves and 'get down' with the people, and isn't there a pesky kid involved somewhere on the sidelines trying to attract attention? Have a horrible feeling it may all be terribly boring in reality though.

 

[JsMum]

Gordon with that horrible smile that appears at totally inappropriate moments,

 

My Jay does this too, he even laughs sometimes inapropriately tooX

 

Thanks for your replies it does help, I want to go for a party that supports children with SEN, I looked at the Green Party but they agree with mainstream inclusion so wont be voting for them as I dont agree ALL children with SEN should be in Mainstream setting.

 

Thanks for the websites Kathryn I will study them so I can make a rational decision, also your right about having that right as a WOMAN, so I will out of respect VOTE.

 

One of the main reasons for voting Cameron was because he had a special needs child and I thought he would understand parents needs and childrens educational needs rights.

 

JsMumxx

x

[dana]

One of the main reasons for voting Cameron was because he had a special needs child and I thought he would understand parents needs and childrens educational needs rights.

 

JsMumxx

x

 

I used to think that but Cameron being rich didn't have to claim DLA neither fight the system to help his child and also I have read recently the interview with him in Daily Mail (or Daily Express,I don't remember exactly) where he said that all peolple who claim DLA will be reassesed to see who is genuinly claiming it . In this climate of recession and his determination to cuts this could mean excuse to try to find the ways to cut even genuine DLA claims.

BTW, even Brown has SEN child and a lot of the things have been done to improve SEN services during Labour (Lamb etc.) although certenly not enough. They also did bad with Badman report for homeeducating people so I am not really fond of them either. I also agree with JsMum about inclusion policy but what would Cameron do in the situation where he wants to make cuts? Would he build more Special Schools and send more children with SEN there? I doubt that. It is more likely that he would cut even present provisions. That is my personal opinion.

 

Danaxxx

Edited April 15, 2010 by dana

[pearl]

I'm in agreement with Kathryn. However I'm so disillusioned with all of them that for the first time ever I've seriously considered not voting this time as a protest.

 

I will though, because our local MP is superb. He has been involved in autism issues, works extremely hard for his constituency & we saw him delivering his leaflets himself instead of expecting a minion to do it. He's involved in local life - I often see him with his hessian shopping bag at the Farmer's Market, just living his life. Most importantly, he emerged from the expenses scandal squeaky clean.

 

We are a fairly marginal constituency so my vote really will count. If he had a huge majority, I'd probably revert to the 'not voting in protest' this time.

[zenemu]

I must admit to spoiling my ballet paper for the past few elections. All the parties have policies I disagree with. I don't think that this year will beany different.

 

Zen

[NobbyNobbs]

i'll be voting. not voting doesn't get you anywhere, theyre not going to say 'lots of people didn't vote so noone will run the country'...

 

the party i vote for have certain views that would make my life a lot harder, but the general thrust of their views fits with mine so thats the one for me. the bad bits, none of the political parties do what i would like and i'd rather be ignored than patronised and used as a 'we're not X-ist' label

[justine1]

I think who ever we vote for nothing is guarenteed and it is obvious there will be cuts somewhere.Though as parents of children with SEN we dont want the cuts to be in schools,specialist or mainstream.But I have to say as a parent of four children I also would not want the cuts to be in NHS.

 

I came here in 2002 and in 2003 I used the hospital for the first time when I gave birth to Sam,the experience was good I stayed overnight was offered tea,snacks and meals brought to me.I also took Sam to A&E three months later as he had a serious virus and dehydrated,we were seen within an hour and he was admitted quickly.

Then I had Eli in 2008 at the same hospital,I was offered no tea,I had to get it myself and this was the same for the meals,and one occasion I was not there because I had to take Eli to get his heart checked,so I had to wait three hours for them to locate my meal!

As for the same A&E we have to wait an average of 4hours now and then seen sometimes by three different doctors asking same questions over and over!

 

Another example of how things have changed when Josh(9) started school he was one of just 15 pupils when he left the same school in 2008 the class had grown to 32!!

 

This is just two examples of how the present government dont appear to be doing what they are supposed to,and obviousley there are even more serious things going on right now.

 

I am not complaining by the way,I was not born here(thought I am of UK ancestry and now a citizen.)and I am grateful to be in this country,I do think that even with all the problems it is still one of the best place to raise children and give them the opportunities they deserve.It is hard to vote for the right party but I think we all try to vote for who we think will do the right thing not just by our own families but for all the people in the country.

[Canopus]

I looked at the Green Party but they agree with mainstream inclusion so wont be voting for them as I dont agree ALL children with SEN should be in Mainstream setting.

 

The Green Party also proposes to bring back catchment areas for schools. This means that kids will have to attend the nearest school even if there are problems such as bullying, or facilities for things such as sports or computers are not as good as other local schools. Personally I think this policy of denying parents and kids a choice of which school to attend is tied to a very heavy lead balloon.

[Samsam]

There is this site

 

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

 

it gives you the choice of six policies one from each of the main parties, you select which policy appeals to you the most from 4 areas such as economy, education (you choose which 4 before you start) and at the end it tells you who to vote for.

 

 

[Kathryn]

The Green Party also proposes to bring back catchment areas for schools. This means that kids will have to attend the nearest school even if there are problems such as bullying, or facilities for things such as sports or computers are not as good as other local schools. Personally I think this policy of denying parents and kids a choice of which school to attend is tied to a very heavy lead balloon.

 

Parents do not have a choice anyway - this is a myth, and believing this myth leads to a huge disappointment at school allocation time. Parents can express a preference for a school, which is a different thing altogether. Children are allocated their highest ranked school for which they meet the admission criteria. Only those lucky enough to meet the criteria for more than one school on their list can truly say that they have a choice.

 

K x

[JsMum]

Parents do not have a choice anyway - this is a myth, and believing this myth leads to a huge disappointment at school allocation time. Parents can express a preference for a school, which is a different thing altogether. Children are allocated their highest ranked school for which they meet the admission criteria. Only those lucky enough to meet the criteria for more than one school on their list can truly say that they have a choice.

 

K x

 

Doesnt this make it more likely that in deprived areas schools do less well.

 

There is one school that no parent wants their kid to go to, not even if it was the last school on earth, they are opting for Home ed or even robbing the bank to go privately!

 

 

JsMumx

 

 

 

[pearl]

There is this site

 

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

 

it gives you the choice of six policies one from each of the main parties, you select which policy appeals to you the most from 4 areas such as economy, education (you choose which 4 before you start) and at the end it tells you who to vote for.

 

Trouble is though, its a waste of a vote if the party you want has no chance of winning your constituency. That's how we are placed - I'd quite like to give the underdogs a chance, but they are trailing so far behind the 2 others I'd waste my vote. We are marginal so there'd then be a good chance of the candidate I definitely don't want getting in.

[Kathryn]

Doesn't this make it more likely that in deprived areas schools do less well.

 

There is one school that no parent wants their kid to go to, not even if it was the last school on earth, they are opting for Home ed or even robbing the bank to go privately!

Absolutely, and such schools acquire a reputation - sometimes unfairly - often because of the area they are in. The schools in our town are massively oversubscribed and every year there is a huge outcry because pupils cannot get a place. Yet there is one school in a relatively deprived area which nobody wants their nice well behaved middle class children to go to, and so it only admits about two thirds of its admission number, leaving about 50 year 7 places unfilled.

 

Trouble is though, its a waste of a vote if the party you want has no chance of winning your constituency. That's how we are placed - I'd quite like to give the underdogs a chance, but they are trailing so far behind the 2 others I'd waste my vote. We are marginal so there'd then be a good chance of the candidate I definitely don't want getting in.

 

Same here - but in our constituency Labour has no chance of winning this time, apparently.

 

Did anyone see the debate last night?

 

K x

Edited April 16, 2010 by Kathryn

[Samsam]

But isn't the point of voting to vote for who you want to and vote for the person who's policies you agree with most? if everyone voted for who they thought would win then nothing would ever change and we'd be stuck with the same parties every election. Even if the Lib Dems got a few more seats this time and then a few more the next time eventually it would lead to them having a good chance of getting in, maybe not this time but I'd like to think that maybe I can make an informed choice about who will run the country when my children are much older.

[Canopus]

Parents do not have a choice anyway - this is a myth, and believing this myth leads to a huge disappointment at school allocation time. Parents can express a preference for a school, which is a different thing altogether. Children are allocated their highest ranked school for which they meet the admission criteria. Only those lucky enough to meet the criteria for more than one school on their list can truly say that they have a choice.

 

In practice it depends on where you live. If many of the schools happen to be close to full capacity or oversubscribed then you have little choice. If many of the schools have plenty of surplus places then your kid will probably win a place at whatever school you pick. Some parts of England have a serious excess of surplus places and schools are either closing down or under threat of closure.

 

Trouble is though, its a waste of a vote if the party you want has no chance of winning your constituency. That's how we are placed - I'd quite like to give the underdogs a chance, but they are trailing so far behind the 2 others I'd waste my vote. We are marginal so there'd then be a good chance of the candidate I definitely don't want getting in.

 

I can see the logic in voting for a party likely to win in a marginal constituency. If you live in a safe constituency (as I do) then it's sensible to vote for who you support. Sometimes a small party getting a strong vote, but not winning, gives the establishment a message.

 

But isn't the point of voting to vote for who you want to and vote for the person who's policies you agree with most? if everyone voted for who they thought would win then nothing would ever change and we'd be stuck with the same parties every election.

 

A lot of people treat elections like a horse race. They only want to vote for who is likely to win. Our FPTP election system gives most small parties a raw deal compared to most systems of PR.

[chris54]

Historically the Conservative party was only interested in looking after the interest of the well off, and the Labour party the interests of working people.

 

Over time these two extremes have become blurred but if you look closely you will see that these views still underlay party policy.

 

I find it hard to believe that someone would, in the first place, join a party and then become leader if they did not believe in the founding principal of that party. (Or they were only interested in their own ends)

 

I could take the view that there is little point in voting where I live as one party has always dominated all elections here and even with the sitting MP being ousted in the expenses scandal, most people here will trot of the the poles and vote as directed by the squire.

 

But I will go out and vote for who I believe in, even though I know that resistance is futile.

Edited April 16, 2010 by chris54

[NobbyNobbs]

Historically the Conservative party was only interested in looking after the interest of the well off, and the Labour party the interests of working people.

i would disagree with that. 'New Labour' are only interested in the interests of certain groups of working people (and of course single parents, the unemployed, social deviants etc.) unless you live in london or the north you dont get a look-in with labour because they put their money/schemes where they can win/buy votes. it's courtesy of labour that my parents would be better off if they divorced. when my mother had cancer and could not work we could claim no benefit because my father is employed... even though he earns just £11,000 a year... how's that for looking after working people?

 

our area is a done deal. i have no idea when someone other than the conservatives won, but i bet it was a long time ago!

 

on a side point i find the local elections far more exciting. i'm happy to vote for anyone who isn't our local UKIP member as he feels the need to walk along the beach naked in the middle of summer in front of all the children.

[chris54]

i would disagree with that. 'New Labour' are only interested in the interests of certain groups of working people

 

 

I did say "Historically"

 

 

Can't comment on your family situating. My wife has been on incapacity benefit for the last 10 years because she is unable to work, for most of that time I have been self employed or working full time and have claimed tax credit from when it was first introduced by Labour.

 

I would agree that there are a number of anomalies in the benefit system with regard to parents who live together/apart, but this is not new and governments of all colours have attempted to address this but failed.

 

I live in what most people in "The South" would think of as "The North". We see very little of this "Look-in" that is supposed to be heading our way.

Edited April 20, 2010 by chris54

[justine1]

I did the online "questionaire" and got the result of who to vote for but I think its a little silly because firstly they didnt have all the policies for all the parties which made it a choice of one or two and also I think if you already leaning towards one party its likely you will automatically(subconciously)chose their policy.

 

One thing I am getting angry about is immigration and foreign policy,none of these are made to clear,except for BNP which of course I would never vote for!!!I am originally from abroad but I do think UK need to be tougher now.As for the war,I just think they need to show us a type of five year plan on what they going to do,I just think alot of the policies are outlining things but not giving us a clear indication of how or when they will do it!!!!

[baranigirl]

which party is gonna sort out the benefits system? meaning a fmily like mine where both parents work full time are actually better off rather than as we are currently worse off than a family who live off the state and I am not having a go at people just the system

[justine1]

which party is gonna sort out the benefits system? meaning a fmily like mine where both parents work full time are actually better off rather than as we are currently worse off than a family who live off the state and I am not having a go at people just the system

I agree.Yes I am on benefits right now,but when I was living with my husband and both of us worked full time we were bringing home £2000p/m combined,each mth after paying the bills we were left with £100,thats all for entertainment and clothes,with three kids(at the time)to clothe we had nothing!!!

 

I am better off on my own on benefits and if I wasnt such an ambitious person I would be happy and comfortable to remain on benefits,but I could never do that,its just not the way I was raised.

 

I also think the system needs to be tighter,how can people still be claiming for children who have left home?Or worse kids that dont even excist????

[Helvic]

I think everyone should vote, - there are those in so many countries who still can't take this right for granted. Every woman should certainly vote - out of respect for those who fought so damned hard to get us the vote. That's my opinion anyway!

 

This is a site which will tell you who is standing in your area. http://www.yournextmp.com/

 

And here is a site I like: it gives good basic info about the goings on in Westminster, and you can track what your own MP has been doing, saying and voting on. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

 

K x

 

Kathryn, thanks a million for posting those links... I shall peruse this evening...

[baranigirl]

I agree.Yes I am on benefits right now,but when I was living with my husband and both of us worked full time we were bringing home £2000p/m combined,each mth after paying the bills we were left with £100,thats all for entertainment and clothes,with three kids(at the time)to clothe we had nothing!!!

 

I am better off on my own on benefits and if I wasnt such an ambitious person I would be happy and comfortable to remain on benefits,but I could never do that,its just not the way I was raised.

 

I also think the system needs to be tighter,how can people still be claiming for children who have left home?Or worse kids that dont even excist????

 

 

thats my problem too I can't not work it doesn't feel right!

[chris54]

I also think the system needs to be tighter,how can people still be claiming for children who have left home?Or worse kids that dont even excist????

Because they are on the fiddle. If you know of someone doing this you should report them.

 

 

Addressing low pay would help offset the problem of people being better off on benefits than working.

If it where not for tax credits, I would be better off not working, how can that be right.

Why are taxpayers having to top up peoples pay?

You cant just do away with tax credit, well you could but then there would be a lot of people, myself included who would find it very hard to manage.

Why do we expect those that provide services and goods that we all rely on to exist on such low pay?

Edited April 21, 2010 by chris54

[Mumble]

Can someone explain something - I think I am missing something obvious.

 

This will be my first year where I'm going to vote (for various reasons).

 

I know which party I want to be in Government. However, the MP for that party in my area is dreadful, they have only responded to a few of my letters and where they have this have been very brief, referred to me as a 'he', and contained incorrect information. I do not feel that this person represents me or the local community or is aware of local issues.

 

So how do I vote? This is the only candidate for this party. They are currently the MP for the area. I want to vote for their party but not for them.

 

[KezT]

I want to vote for their party but not for them. unsure.gif

 

under the current system, that is not possible. you have to vote for a person.

 

the lib dems want to change the system to full PR which would mean you vote for a party and they get x number of seats dependent on total votes (however, thisis unlikely to happen in the UK imho)

 

labour want to change the system so that you can have 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes, and the person with the highest score gets the seat, but that still means you are stuck with crappy candidates if that is who is standing in your area.

 

there is strong talk about constituents having the option to "sack" their MPs if they are unhappy with them, but even if that happens, I expect you would need a specific reason to sack them, rather than not liking the choice of person.

 

you could join the party - that way you might get a chance of choosing your candidate MP next time - each party chooses them differently. the tories have mooted the idea that candidates should be voted for by the constituents, but I think it unlikely to be implemented as it would cost a fortune.........

 

 

[KezT]

the MP for that party in my area is dreadful, they have only responded to a few of my letters and where they have this have been very brief, referred to me as a 'he', and contained incorrect information. I do not feel that this person represents me or the local community or is aware of local issues.

 

complain to the local party and/or the leader. but it is too late to change them this time round:(

[Mumble]

under the current system, that is not possible. you have to vote for a person.

Okay, so I guess I have to vote for them, whatever I think of them. Better that than a vote for the other parties. And the Monster Raving Loonies aren't standing in my area (have you read their manifesto? Parts of it are hilarious!!) so I can't protest by voting for them!

 

labour want to change the system so that you can have 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes, and the person with the highest score gets the seat, but that still means you are stuck with crappy candidates if that is who is standing in your area.

I didn't know this. I've aways wondered why they (as in general people who decide on voting systems) don't allow everyone two (different) votes, as this would allow people to vote on the basis of policies/parties they were interested in rather than possibly feeling swayed towards the big two. I think it would be very interesting to see the results if that were allowed.

 

[trekster]

Im considering going for lib dem since the high speed trains and the local train link to my sisters town are important to me.

[KezT]

remember, we have the oldest democracy in the world, and the voting system has not changed in 100's of years it was originally set up when only landowning men had the vote, MP's were not paid, and the whole thing was a bit of a boys club where everyone knew everyone, and the voices of the people were irrelevent. the local richest landowner would usual become the local MP and would fight for local issues as they affected him, and (usually) his ability to remain the richest and most powerful local person.

 

no change there then

 

party politics was originally a way to temper this, with party whips to ensure MPs voted to the benefit of the whole country rather than themselves. imo, this is also now seriously outdated too.

[Kathryn]

I vote for Joanna Lumley.

 

The way she dealt with the Gurkha issue was impressive - just one steely- eyed look and they'll all be cowering in their seats.

 

K x

[Tally]

Can someone explain something - I think I am missing something obvious.

 

This will be my first year where I'm going to vote (for various reasons).

 

I know which party I want to be in Government. However, the MP for that party in my area is dreadful, they have only responded to a few of my letters and where they have this have been very brief, referred to me as a 'he', and contained incorrect information. I do not feel that this person represents me or the local community or is aware of local issues.

 

So how do I vote? This is the only candidate for this party. They are currently the MP for the area. I want to vote for their party but not for them.

This is a failing of our system, you are not the only person with this dilemma! Where I used to live I used to vote for an MP who I thought was good, but I would not have wanted her party to have won the election overall!

 

You are "supposed" to vote for the person who you feel represents your needs best at a local level. If your choice is elected, they will be able to put your point of view across directly to government by contributing to debates in the House of Commons and by voting about legislation.

 

Because of the way things are and the way the media is used during an election campaign, it's easy to feel that you are voting for David Cameron, Gordon Brown, or whoever. In a sense, obviously, you are, because whoever is selected as your MP counts toward which party ultimately wins the election.

 

You have to weigh up how strongly you feel about local and national issues. You can vote against your current MP and possibly end up with a party in government that you don't like. Or you can vote for the party you want to see in government and you might end up with an MP who does not represent you at a local level.

[chris54]

There is nothing to stop a party winning the election and immediately changing leader. If that was to happen we could end up with a PM we had never heard of. And it is possible for a party to win but its leader not be elected. And it is possible for prime minister to be someone who is not in the majority party.

 

My advise is to look and see what your local candidates have to say and vote on that.