Jump to content
JsMum

I dont know who to Vote for?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Hi samsam

 

That was interesting! I thought I was likely to be picking Conservative policies, except the last one, but it turns out I picked one each from 4 different parties :blink: I even chose the BNPs education policy :unsure: I was decided before, now I'm undecided :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What will actually happen and what do I have to do when I go to vote tomorrow? :unsure: This will be the first time I've voted.

 

I have my polling card, but it just says where to go, not what to do.

 

Do I have to take any ID? If so, what type?

 

How long will it take? Will I have to queue?

 

Once inside the building there will be two people sitting at a desk, you go up to them, show them your card, they will find your name on there list, check with you that it is right, stamp the voting slip and hand it to you.

 

You take the voting slip to one of the booths and put a cross ( X ) next to your chosen candidate. You then fold the slip take it to the ballot box and put it in, the ballot box will be near the desk.

 

(This should all be on the back of your Polling cared)

 

Then go home put your feet up and have a cup of tea. That your bit done.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then go home put your feet up and have a cup of tea.

I like this bit :D

 

All done - got a little confused as I was given two ballot papers which I wasn't expecting and I didn't know any of the names on the second paper and it asked me to choose three of them, so I just went by party on that one. :unsure:

 

I am really concerned about how easy it would be to cheat, i.e. I could just go and pick up another student's card that has been unclaimed, as they didn't ask for ID and didn't even ask my name, they looked up the card number and said "are you Mumble?" so I could just reply 'yes' to whichever name was on the card (don't worry, I'm not going to, but it does seem very open to abuse, as there's going to be loads of shared letterboxes round where I live).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like this bit :D

 

All done - got a little confused as I was given two ballot papers which I wasn't expecting and I didn't know any of the names on the second paper and it asked me to choose three of them, so I just went by party on that one. :unsure:

 

I am really concerned about how easy it would be to cheat, i.e. I could just go and pick up another student's card that has been unclaimed, as they didn't ask for ID and didn't even ask my name, they looked up the card number and said "are you Mumble?" so I could just reply 'yes' to whichever name was on the card (don't worry, I'm not going to, but it does seem very open to abuse, as there's going to be loads of shared letterboxes round where I live).

Forgot to say that in some areas their are also local elections going on at the same time, in these areas you will get two ballot papers and for some local elections you have multiple votes.

 

I think the security (ID of voter) or lack of it goes back to the early days of voting when only a small number of people voted, and later most people had no way of proving who they were anyway.

 

Part of the reason a cross is used and not a tick is because a cross represented Christianity, by using this symbol it was as if you were swearing on the bible. It has since turned from a cross into an "X".

 

In passing, this is the same reason someone, in days gone by, who could not read or write used a "X" instead of a signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but I find this offensive: i.e. the implication that all Christans are homophobic or mad or both. That may be not what you meant but that's how it comes across.

Sure, I imagine it is offensive, but please be careful not to "shoot the messenger".

 

I'm not agreeing that Christians are actually like that, rather acknowledging, as an issue which needs to be handled, that a lot of people do believe that Christians are like that. It has become clear in recent years that a large number of people believe that a significant number of Christians are homophobic in the extreme. My point is that regardless of whether any of us here believe it or whether it is true, many people do believe it. Thus because so many people believe it, I felt it important to explicitly deny to those people (who believe it) that the candidate in question is such a person.

 

I'm sorry it might have seemed like a statement of agreement with those beliefs, rather than dealing with the fact that the beliefs exist; it seemed at the time that the current discussions this forum would give enough context to disambiguate the meaning, but I guess not all people are aware of all of the beliefs and controversies surrounding the subject.

 

Edited by Martin Howe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like a hung parliment, my area has stayed Lib Dem. I am probably been a bit emotional but personally I am worried sick about our kids under the cuts proposed by a Tory government.

 

I am so upset at the result but realise it is a personal thing and fully respect that others may have different opinions.

 

I dont know what others thoughts are x

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We stayed conservative,so did the borough where I used to live,where my family are.So no major changes.I am happy that it remained conservative where I am cause the MP is doing a good job,I just saw on his webpage that he is fighting hard to reduce exclusions getting to the route of the problems.

 

Only time will tell what the overall results will mean for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your post is slightly contradicting you first say how people are having to vote for a person not necessarily the party ... but at the end you say you have no problem voting for your local UKIP candidate so it seems you are equally "pulled" by the whole personality agenda.

Rather than "contradicting", I'd call it "having to make the best of a non-ideal situation" in which some sort of theoretical answer that doesn't involve compromise or contradiction isn't possible. Ideally there'd be no discrepancy between the party and the local MP. Perhaps there'd be some sort of neutral parliamentary advocate for the constituency, with the MP being a separate function. Perhaps some form of PR instead. I don't know. The point is that under the current system, discrepancies do arise and we just have to manage them as best we can and thus compromise or contradiction is inevitable in some cases.

 

... my kids have been subject to racial abuse just for being mixed race and if there were no laws to help me fight against those racists that what future would my children have?and how is it a fair society?

But there are laws against race hate, just as there ought to be; I don't consider that PC, but common sense. Where I disagree is when it becomes un-PC to even discuss many issues because people believe something without regard to reason, just because somebody's feeling are hurt if the opposite were true.

 

Perhaps an example is in order here and I shall use an issue which I'm still thinking about rather than one on which I have already made my mind up.

 

Consider gay people being allowed to adopt straight children. Nowhere have I ever seen anybody on either side of the debate give a reasoned logical support of their point; the pros usually shout down the antis with "human rights" or "people's feelings" and the antis usually call it "unnatural" or "against the word of god". Suppose it were proved scientifically that a gay couple can bring up a straight child effectively so the child grows up into a functioning straight adult; would the antis accept it with good grace or would they spend hours looking for ways to find a loophole? Or suppose that it were proved scientifically that a gay couple cannot bring up a straight child effectively so the child grows up into a functioning straight adult; would the pros accept it and or would they want to put civil rights over a child's welfare?

 

Either way, discussing this generates such hatred from the PC brigade who say it is offensive to even suggest that gays cannot bring up a straight child even though nobody has yet come up with a generally accepted scientific proof of whether it is true or not. Reverting to the more general case, surely deciding whether something is true or not should come first, before hating people who do/don't agree with it? Surely accepting the consequences of something being true or false is more civilised that allowing something to be done or not be done just because somebody wants to do it or not do it (i.e., without regard to the consequences)?

 

PC to me means lack of objectivity. It means that in many situations, what minorities want takes precedence over the safety of the majority; that is the anthetisis of a civilised society, the foundation of which, due to the imperfect universe we live in, is discipline and sacrifice. Thus I am truly against people having any but the most basic human rights and am 100% in favour of free speech no matter how offensive UNLESS it is spoken ONLY to cause offense or hate, in which case it should be illegal (but on the proviso that only the INTENTION counts; not the EFFECT, because that's merely lack of self control).

 

Until people are required by Law to not take offense at the mere mention of any idea that does not correspond with the majority view; until people are required by Law to consider things by reason before condemning those who don't agree; until people are required by Law to accept that an idea might be true/false in a way they can't see at that time; until the Law states explicitly that just because a majority believe/disbelieve something doesn't necessarily mean that it is/isn't true; ... until these things happen, PC should, in my opinion, be illegal.

Edited by Martin Howe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than "contradicting", I'd call it "having to make the best of a non-ideal situation" in which some sort of theoretical answer that doesn't involve compromise or contradiction isn't possible. Ideally there'd be no discrepancy between the party and the local MP. Perhaps there'd be some sort of neutral parliamentary advocate for the constituency, with the MP being a separate function. Perhaps some form of PR instead. I don't know. The point is that under the current system, discrepancies do arise and we just have to manage them as best we can and thus compromise or contradiction is inevitable in some cases.

 

 

But there are laws against race hate, just as there ought to be; I don't consider that PC, but common sense. Where I disagree is when it becomes un-PC to even discuss many issues because people believe something without regard to reason, just because somebody's feeling are hurt if the opposite were true.

 

Perhaps an example is in order here and I shall use an issue which I'm still thinking about rather than one on which I have already made my mind up.

 

Consider gay people being allowed to adopt straight children. Nowhere have I ever seen anybody on either side of the debate give a reasoned logical support of their point; the pros usually shout down the antis with "human rights" or "people's feelings" and the antis usually call it "unnatural" or "against the word of god". Suppose it were proved scientifically that a gay couple can bring up a straight child effectively so the child grows up into a functioning straight adult; would the antis accept it with good grace or would they spend hours looking for ways to find a loophole? Or suppose that it were proved scientifically that a gay couple cannot bring up a straight child effectively so the child grows up into a functioning straight adult; would the pros accept it and or would they want to put civil rights over a child's welfare?

 

Either way, discussing this generates such hatred from the PC brigade who say it is offensive to even suggest that gays cannot bring up a straight child even though nobody has yet come up with a generally accepted scientific proof of whether it is true or not. Reverting to the more general case, surely deciding whether something is true or not should come first, before hating people who do/don't agree with it? Surely accepting the consequences of something being true or false is more civilised that allowing something to be done or not be done just because somebody wants to do it or not do it (i.e., without regard to the consequences)?

 

PC to me means lack of objectivity. It means that in many situations, what minorities want takes precedence over the safety of the majority; that is the anthetisis of a civilised society, the foundation of which, due to the imperfect universe we live in, is discipline and sacrifice. Thus I am truly against people having any but the most basic human rights and am 100% in favour of free speech no matter how offensive UNLESS it is spoken ONLY to cause offense or hate, in which case it should be illegal (but on the proviso that only the INTENTION counts; not the EFFECT, because that's merely lack of self control).

 

Until people are required by Law to not take offense at the mere mention of any idea that does not correspond with the majority view; until people are required by Law to consider things by reason before condemning those who don't agree; until people are required by Law to accept that an idea might be true/false in a way they can't see at that time; until the Law states explicitly that just because a majority believe/disbelieve something doesn't necessarily mean that it is/isn't true; ... until these things happen, PC should, in my opinion, be illegal.

I had actually responded to another post whereby someone said there is a difference between being PC and hate/race crimes,I completely disagree having had years experience with this.I know of a nurse who was tormented at her work place for nearly two years by a patients mother because she didnt want a black nurse touching/caring for her child,she would call her offensive names and in the end the nurse lost all confidence in her abilities and had to leave her employment.Her employer did nothing to help or support her and colleagues shyed away from helping thinking they may lose their own jobs even though they acknowledged the mother was wrong.This nurse managed to win compensation in the end.My husband was called many racist names by his manager and he thumped him in the end cause as many times as he reported him nothing was done about it,in fact the same manager had been reported various times about making sexist remarks/jokes.

 

My point is by being PC and not offending people you are avoiding the whole hate crime scenario,it can only be a "crime" if there is proof/evidence and often there is none.The verbal abuse people suffer is sometimes even more hurtful than physical abuse.I take it you have no expereince of this so therefore you wouldnt actually know how it feels.I have been trying for a year to get some sort of apology for what happened to my children,nobody replies my numerous emails.

 

As I mentioned before I do agree that there can be a thing of being over PC,whereby people go so far out of their way not to offend they end up offending someone else.So I think it needs to be balanced but not eradicated.

 

As for your example,I have just one thing to say how does anyone know if a baby or young child is straight????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for your example,I have just one thing to say how does anyone know if a baby or young child is straight????

They measure them up against an EU cucumber, obviously! :lol: :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused???????? When I voted it only let me vote locally there was no choices for the general candidates?????????? Does anyone know why?

I dont know how to explain it properly but basically you are voting for a seat for the party you chose.So in the end you are voting for the person in your constituency for the particular party.Then they add up all the seats(each constituent win) and get the overall result.

Sorry cant explain properly!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider gay people being allowed to adopt straight children. Nowhere have I ever seen anybody on either side of the debate give a reasoned logical support of their point; the pros usually shout down the antis with "human rights" or "people's feelings" and the antis usually call it "unnatural" or "against the word of god". Suppose it were proved scientifically that a gay couple can bring up a straight child effectively so the child grows up into a functioning straight adult; would the antis accept it with good grace or would they spend hours looking for ways to find a loophole? Or suppose that it were proved scientifically that a gay couple cannot bring up a straight child effectively so the child grows up into a functioning straight adult; would the pros accept it and or would they want to put civil rights over a child's welfare?

errrm... i find that all rather disturbing. gay kids dont get to have/need gay parents... so why would straight kids get to have/need straight parents? theres some logic for you. also as far as i know, gay people ARE allowed to adopt children, gay and straight. and as justine says, how on earth do you tell if a baby is gay? even the seriously self aware homosexuals generally dont know until they're 4/5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know how to explain it properly but basically you are voting for a seat for the party you chose.So in the end you are voting for the person in your constituency for the particular party.Then they add up all the seats(each constituent win) and get the overall result.

Sorry cant explain properly!!!!

 

How comes some people have had 2 ballot papers and voted twice-locally & general???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some constituencies had local and general election ballots, we only had general. The local ones tend to be every other year so if your constituency wasn't voting this year in the locals then you would only have had a general election ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How comes some people have had 2 ballot papers and voted twice-locally & general???????

If you only got one then it meaNS that is for the general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some constituencies had local and general election ballots, we only had general. The local ones tend to be every other year so if your constituency wasn't voting this year in the locals then you would only have had a general election ballot.

 

So ScienceGeek did you have Gordan Brown, Nick Clegg & David Cameron etc for your choices??????? I only had my local MP's! Some people in other areas have had their local MP's and Gordan Brown, Nick Clegg & David Cameron etc which ment 2 ballot papers!!!!! Some only had Gordan Brown, Nick Clegg & David Cameron etc So how come I only had my local????????

 

Sorry if I sound dim :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you vote in a general election, you are not actually voting for the prime minister. You are selecting an MP to represent your local area, called a constituency. The candidates normally stand for a party such as Conservative, Labour, UKIP, etc, but there are also independent candidates in some constituencies as well. The one who wins in the local constituency becomes your MP and gets to sit in the House of Commons and vote on new laws. The party who gets the most MPs in the House of Commons gets to form a government - they are the ones who are in power.

 

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown are all MPs, but in different constituencies. One of their names would have been on your ballot paper ONLY if you happened to live in one of their constituencies. For example, Gordon Brown was a candidate for the Kirkcaldy consituency and has been elected as their MP. People in Kirkcaldy would have had Gordon Brown's name on their ballot paper because he was their candidate, but the Conservative candidate for Kirkcaldy would not have been David Cameron.

 

If you go to this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ele...010/default.stm and type in your postcode, it will show the breakdown of votes in your constituency, and who your local MP is now. The names on your ballot paper should be the ones listed here.

 

Some areas also had council elections on the same day. This is to make things simpler for people who don't want to have to go and vote twice. Candidates for council are also normally members of a political party. Councils have powers to make local decisions and also manage issues such as waste collection and road repair. Not all areas had council elections yesterday. If you only had one ballot paper, it was for the general election, and your local election will be at another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So ScienceGeek did you have Gordan Brown, Nick Clegg & David Cameron etc for your choices??????? I only had my local MP's! Some people in other areas have had their local MP's and Gordan Brown, Nick Clegg & David Cameron etc which ment 2 ballot papers!!!!! Some only had Gordan Brown, Nick Clegg & David Cameron etc So how come I only had my local????????

 

Sorry if I sound dim :whistle:

No-one will have had these three on their ballot paper. People who live in the constituency of one of these people will have had that person on their paper (I think?). So people who live in Nick Clegg's constituency would have had him, someone from Labour and someone from Conservative as well as a range of smaller parties.

 

'General' in general election means, I think, general to the country in that everyone is voting.

 

However, a general election is still for your local member of parliament, i.e. you are voting for who you want to represent your community within the house of Parliament.

 

I think the difficult this year is that the leaders debates have put a focus on the three leaders rather than the parties and their policies. The format of the debate came from the American presidential debate, but in America, the people vote directly for the president they want. We are not doing this, we are voting for someone local.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if, say in Cameron's constituency, he didn't get the most votes and wasn't elected as an MP? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would happen if, say in Cameron's constituency, he didn't get the most votes and wasn't elected as an MP? :unsure:

 

he wouldn't be an MP!

 

it would be a larf :whistle: but in fact, you do not have to be an MP to be the PM in theory (don't think this has ever been done in practise tho - certainly not in modern times) - the Queen can appoint anyone she thinks will produce a stable government. this is usually the leader of the majority party in the House, but not always.

 

Some pretty major cabinet ministers have lost their seats at various times. Anyone of an age will remember (mostly with glee) Portillo losing his seat while defence secretary :thumbs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would happen if, say in Cameron's constituency, he didn't get the most votes and wasn't elected as an MP? :unsure:

 

I started studying Politics for A Level, and all I learned is that out constitution is really, really complicated, mostly because it's not actually written down anywhere like the American one. I was surprised today to learn that the outgoing prime minister gets first dibs on trying to form a government even though he came second in this election. We could end up with the second and third place parties in government! But what is legal is not necessarily going to be popular, and they would need to take into account public reaction to any decision as to who becomes our new prime minister.

 

It would be very rare because they tend to allot senior people a "safe seat" where they are highly unlikely to lose. It does not go down well when we get a new prime minister due to the party electing a new leader, so I don't think people would realistically support a prime minister who had not even been elected as an MP, and it would make them very unpopular from the outset. Realistically, the Conservative party would probably elect themselves a new leader out of elected MPs. The Conservative party's process for electing a new leader is ridiculously long, so it would take months before we knew who our prime minister was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some pretty major cabinet ministers have lost their seats at various times. Anyone of an age will remember (mostly with glee) Portillo losing his seat while defence secretary

 

Best bit of the 97 election :thumbs:

 

Give him his due though, once he left politics he seemed to turn into a thoroughly nice bloke. I doubt that would have happened if he'd ended up as leader of the party, so all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Best bit of the 97 election :thumbs:

 

Give him his due though, once he left politics he seemed to turn into a thoroughly nice bloke. I doubt that would have happened if he'd ended up as leader of the party, so all good.

 

absolutely :thumbs: - just shows how the media can make all the difference - he went from the most hated slimy snake of a right wing bigot, to a rather nice, intelligent bloke with fairly centre/liberal views just by losing his seat LOL

 

Still Neil Hamilton went from a hated corrupt criminal to that funny bloke just by doing one TV show :whistle: and Boris Johnson was given a whole political career by being a bit stupid on the telly :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sad that our Labour MP lost his seat. A good hardworking man who was involved with autism & carer's issues. The woman who won didn't even turn up to any of the debates so its not like she even fought a good campaign. Back to the situation of 13 years ago here - we'll only see her at the annual gala. We lost a couple of wards in the reorganisation, which made a crucial difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm really sad that our Labour MP lost his seat. A good hardworking man who was involved with autism & carer's issues. The woman who won didn't even turn up to any of the debates so its not like she even fought a good campaign. Back to the situation of 13 years ago here - we'll only see her at the annual gala. We lost a couple of wards in the reorganisation, which made a crucial difference.

 

:tearful:

 

hopefully you can get him back soon - there'll be another election in 12-18 mths if a deal is done with the lib dems, and within 2 mths if not!

Edited by KezT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She got a much bigger majority than he did, Kez, so I don't know if he'd get back in.

 

hopefully there'll be a new form of voting tho;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was surprised today to learn that the outgoing prime minister gets first dibs on trying to form a government even though he came second in this election.

I heard that too, so why is it that Cameron is getting first go at trying to bribe butter-up corrupt form an alliance with Clegg? :unsure:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard that too, so why is it that Cameron is getting first go at trying to bribe butter-up corrupt form an alliance with Clegg? :unsure:

 

because Clegg said inthe event of a hung parliament he thought it would be most fair to try to do a deal with the biggest party.

 

if that fails, he will talk to labour

 

also, it only needs two parties to form a stable (majority) gov't if he deals with the tories, while if he goes in with labour, they need extra support too - more complicated!

 

If Clegg and Cameron come to an agreement it will mean Brown can not form a gov't and he will stand down at that point. until then, someone needs to do the job:) He is being polite and waiting for Clegg to talk to Cameron first as Clegg had pledged to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clegg (says he) feels that it would be morally right for him to help the Conservatives to form a government, since they did actually get more votes than Labour. Of course, there's nothing stopping the Conservatives and Labour forming a coalition.

 

All the papers are complaining about Brown staying on as PM, but I don't think it is really like they are saying. He could resign, but since we don't have a viable alternative yet, I think he's right to stay on for a few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clegg (says he) feels that it would be morally right for him to help the Conservatives to form a government, since they did actually get more votes than Labour. Of course, there's nothing stopping the Conservatives and Labour forming a coalition.

 

All the papers are complaining about Brown staying on as PM, but I don't think it is really like they are saying. He could resign, but since we don't have a viable alternative yet, I think he's right to stay on for a few days.

 

I think he's required to stay on at least until it's clear that a new government can be formed, so he's only doing his duty.

 

K x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...