±«Óãtv

"Excluded from the political debate"

What if the public simply feel that the whole political system in this country is completely inept?

I put it to the voting public (and fellow posters) that if you are sick to the back teeth with the bank bailouts, banker’s bonuses, Westminster expenses scandals and general establishment corruption...then you just might want to consider a proposed course of action...

...which would be to spoil your ballot paper in the forthcoming GE by putting a cross in ALL of the boxes. Remember, this would be OFFICIALLY recorded as a 'spoilt' ballot paper. It would therefore be considered as a de facto 'abstention'...and all spoilt ballot papers are (of course) counted, recorded and announced.

ANY OTHER 'VOTE' IS JUST A VOTE FOR THE STATUS QUO. DON'T WASTE IT!

Send out a message to the City and Westminster that The People are now ready for REAL change.

Put a X in every box!

24 hour news can be bad for politics - totally agree. I don't see the point of the ±«Óãtv News Channel, much preferring Sky. As for Parliament - whoever watches THAT?

The general public have shown far more interest since they have become outraged at the expenses scandal.

However, too much is overkill. Need to lie down in a darkened room to get over it. Perhaps the government will give out direct payments for respite from all these politics.

#1 DebtJuggler. We do need a political system, that is some mechanism for taking decisions on behalf of all of us.

Spoiling ballot papers is just as bad as not voting, because it means that politicians can safely ignore your opinions, since you will not effect their chances of election. Campaigning for reform is the only answer.

There are many things wrong with the UK's election system, particularly single member constituencies, which results in about 75% of seats being safe and their voters disenfranchised, and the lack of an alternative vote.

The system of party funding is corrupt. Prosecution is usually avoided by using a "nod and a wink" and making sure there is no paper or email trail. This is much more seriuos than MPs fiddling expenses, and must cost the taxpayer much more, but is rarely raised in the media.

The way that prosecutions are terminated, "for security reasons", is really shocking. But this issue receive relatively little attention by the media.

The relationship between the press and politicians is very unhealthy. Of the record briefing and the lobby system should be abandoned.

The whole of the mass media should be put under the same rules as TV and radio and required to maintain a reasonable political balance. The use of ownership of a mass circulation newspaper to influence voting is not acceptable.

These are just some of the areas in which reform is long overdue. I would vote for any party, left, right or centre, which looked likely to do something about them.

Flamethrower - I watch ±«Óãtv Parliament every sitting day. Apart from the Andrew Marr Show, this is the only other programme that, for me, is a "must see". I might watch more than many, but I would be surprised if I were the ONLY viewer.

Self-obsessed or what? A blog about an interview on a blog. What next? A tweet about it?

Must search to find out who the heck Lord Soley is...

#1 - It's a nice variation on the None of the Above idea, same outcome without endorsing anyone.

But what about 24 hour news - who benefits? Clearly the media do, if they have an audience, and there are still a lot of people whose hours do not fit neatly with a nine am to five pm regime.

What disturbs me is the idea that the media can ever represent the public at large, and I guess that is what Lord Soley is driving at. The whole notion that the media know what is going on, what is being said, what is best for us to know, is odious, especially when the ±«Óãtv's own agenda normally boils down to who has got the loudest mouth or the biggest audience, the same thing really.

Could we just get back to covering the "whole" of society in the media and in representational politics? And if that means working class journalists on £6 per hour then so be it.

The media in politics? Wow that's a big subject to discuss.

Hardly surprising a politician would want less negative news. It wasn't the authorities in the HoC that revealed the MP expenses scandal but the media. But we all know how they love the publicity when they have done something good !

Perhaps if the politicians and government were more open and honest then the media scutiny wouldn't be needed. Can't see it happening myself though.

I think the media do a reasonable job overall, and you have to decide the motives and angle on any given bit of info reported. Everyone see things differently - just look at the views on here !

News24 should merge with ±«Óãtv 4 to create a 24 hour service with regular news programmes throughout the day. There isn't enough News for 24 hour coverage so political coverage fills out with speculation and gossip and generally stories are hyped up. Like a bit of snow in winter. They also have to chase ratings for this otherwise dull channel leading to sensationalism and polarisation to keep the arguement going. We don't want a compulsory, flat tax funded Fox news on our hands.

The trouble with 24-hour news is that it hasn't meant more news. It has meant an endless recycling of tittle-tattle and speculation posing as news. There are political stories which should see the light of day, which one can find out about over the internet, but which somehow never get an airing over the froth masquerading as news on the 24-hour channels.

For those who feel excluded from the political process, I suggest voting for one of the "minor" parties, even if you don't particularly agree with them. They won't win anyway but a large enough percentage would put the wind up the big parties more than spoilt papers or abstention would.

#1 Debtjuggler

lovely idea, but all that will happen is that Labour will get back in.

And I can't have that.

Roland D, thats exactly my plan and I have been encouraging that as well around as many people as possible. Vote for a smaller party who are campainging on something thats important for you. Still gets the message across.

But really Nick, a blog about the fact that you're being interviewed? Hardly the most pressing matter but no big surprise.

I watch Parliament too - does this confirm my nerdship?

After 12 years of helping the working class, although I have yet to feel the benefit, Gordon says the future will be for the middle class. Should I apply for membership? or will I be better-off where I am?

Well Nick, the public are definitely being excluded from the political debate, but not by the media.
We are being left out by the pure and simple fact that Brown won't call an election.

I think 24 hr news is good and I do enjoy the ±«Óãtv News Channel. However, even i admit that when the same pointless stories are aired every 30 mins and lasting a few days at times that it does have a tendency to get somewhat annoying.

As for Politics, I think Politicians play a major role in how politics is reported whether it's 24 hrs or not. Maybe what we need is better politicians and then from that starting point everything else will just fall in to place.

Just remember, ours is the greatest democracy in the world.......

Combine our ability to not have to vote with the First Past the Post System and we have the best democratic representation in the world....

If only 50% of the constituency vote and the winner is only elected with 30% of the votes then we have an MP democratically elected by 15% of the constituents and the other 85% get nothing. Now that is true democracy in action, no wonder our country's leaders like things the way they are.

I am going to test my psychic skills and gamble on the fact that come the next general election, my vote will count for absolutely nothing, so I can definitely understand the point behind Poster #1's idea of spoiling the ballot paper. However, if I don't vote against Labour in order to replace the inept government we have I just might regret it, and I use my vote so that I can complain if the people I vote for don't get anything. The last thing I want is to see Gordon hold on to power, he should have everything taken from him just like he did to those of us who have suffered the worst from his bad decisions both as Chancellor and as PM.

So when will the UK officially be classified as a Dictatorship?

I think we've lost all credibility in the Democracy status, just like the currency.

24 hour news requires that politicans remember what lies they told to who. This is certainly an unjust burden. The fact that corruption occurs in both government and business and that exposing such corruption tends to depress the population, he may have a point. The collusion between the banks and politicians that caused the economic collapse requires propoer investigation and accountability and neither the banks nor the politicians would stand for that. The media should be telling people that just because the banks created a scheme that de-populated their retirement savings and when for 7 years prior the politiicans were told that this was looming and did nothing about it, that the people should just accept this greatest theft of personal wealth in the history. The polticians seem to think that the media spends too much time talking about the anger of the people and the inept proposals presented by the government and of course this constant talk about banking bonuses during high unemployment simply will not do. In other words the media should be as dishonest as the government and everything would be fine.

It's simple, we want a general election.

"As someone who has long argued for greater media regulation Clive Soley pushed me to answer the charges that 24-hour news is bad for politics, the public are being excluded from the political debate by the media and by too much negative news."

I think Clive Soley is rather missing the point - 24-hour news is bad for the brain, because reporters are reduced to repeating inanities over and over and over again.

Besides, the Internet is far more significant for political engagement and debate than the old mainstream media - witness the activity on these blogs (though the same old commentators like Saga keep on popping up - would be nice to see some fresh and different bloggers on here from time to time).

Anyway, this is a trivial topic for a ±«Óãtv blog - bit of media navel gazing.
How about a blog on the trillion pounds of debt being piled up by Brown?
How about a blog on the consequences of massive public debt for this country's future?
How about a blog on the very serious issues facing this country as a result of Brown's reckless period in office?

I think 24hr news media of any ilk creates serious problems because of its desperation to maintain public interest at a high pitch all of the time. If news on a breaking story is a bit thin then proper reporting gets diluted with opinion, speculation and freewheeling punditry. The more it spins, nobody is intersested in identifying the facts from the fiction. Then you get another media outlet picking up this mess of half-truths and reporting it as hard news. A few more circuits later, reality is well out of the window.

#1 DebtJuggler

A very good idea - though not original (some friends and I tried to get this off the ground in 1997). A pity that, although I pay income tax in the UK on my pension, I don't have a vote to spoil!

#5 BB - if you find out, let us know!

It's hard to see how the public are "excluded" from the debate with so many blogs popping up. The real problem is politicians who don't listen.

Greater media regulation is not the answer. Politicians need regulating, not a free press!

24 hour rolling news is not always very good (boring and repetitive), but it is very useful to know you can tune in at any time and catch up on the day's headlines.

24hr news is a great propaganda tool for politicians and I think has encouraged the personality based presidential election campaign we are all suffering. Cameron is well known for this so Cameron releases a statement to the press about Gordon Brown as I think 24 hour news is probably often left on in the background. So this statement is repeated around every 20 minutes or so. They can't not use it as they need to fill the time.

I also wonder if as news 24 needs to chase ratings to justify itself, whether they tailor the news to these comments in the mistaken belief that they represent public opinion. Anyone can type whatever they like here with as many names as they like (Party HQ Grassroots/astroturf campaigns). They need seperate emails now though which is progress.

18/19#

Well said. Only thing to add is the CPI figures, going upto 2.9%, biggest single jump in December.

Meanwhile a blog about an interview on the subject of the internecine nepotism that exists between the lobby and the government. The media's job is to report the news. End of. Not spin it, just report it. We should be so bloody lucky. The only reason Soley wants more regulation is to turn the media into even more of a government propaganda mouthpiece than it already is.

Theres more important things going on, Nicholas. First Sea Lord and Chief of the General Staff indulging in a public willy-waving contest for a start, whilst Chief of The Defence Staff sits on his hands; Chilcot, Haiti and inflation making a come back.

And this is the best we deserve? And the question about the public being excluded from the debate even needs to be asked???

OK - I have it now. Lord Soley of Hammersmith. Former (old)Labour MP put out to grass to boost the Labour presence in the Lords.

Question, Nick - why should he choose to interview you? After all, according to some on here, you are not exactly a sympathiser. On the other hand, according to others, you are just that! Must have been an interesting experience, having to make up your mind on which side of the fence to come down!

I must object to comments deriding ±«Óãtv's Parliament Channel. I do most certainly
watch it. The 'On The Record' programme at 11pm is one of the best politics shows
on any channel. The idea that the advert infested Sky News is superior to ±«Óãtv
News 24 is not worthy of consideration. Carry on the good work, Nick. Regards,
RWWCardiff.

I watch Parliament (watching it now), and the Scottish Parliament. Of course, I am retired, but certainly not a nerd.

Clive Soley is right, in that the public have been overdosed in politics which since the sixties, the media have treated as a padding out of the entertainment schedule. This has lead too many to think politics is done on the telly and not, as it used to be, by themselves.

Far from Zedeco's idea that we are excluded because there is no election, he is wrong. We are excluded because we exclude ourselves by not taking part. Join a party and help mould the party you belong to. If a higher percentage of the country were members of the political system do you think the media would get away with treating so lightly?

If it was about the election, we will again be excluded as soon as the election is over. What do you want zydeco, an election every week so you can feel included?

Maybe he/she wants less spin and more substance from either the politicians or the media luvvies!

Eye-wish @ 28

Join a Party Hmmmmm!. I used to belong to the Labour Party - even canvassed for them once - but, like many I no longer consider them worthy of support.
Can't bring myself to commit to the Tories either.
So, which Party do I join? Is there a central co-ordinaating office for Independent candidates? Probably not, so no party to join.

No I wouldn't like an election every week, but I would certainly like one in the next few weeks.

So, Nick, a member of the House of Lords believes that the public is being excluded from the political debate ? ...isnt that a little like the Duke of Edinburgh complaining about the checkout queues in Tescos ? ... how would they ever know ?

The problem with modern news is that it all comes through the filters of the news agency that is reporting it.
So SKY will give you their opinion, the ±«Óãtv will give you another, the tabloids give another, the broadsheets give yet another but none of them actually give you the cold hard facts.

This means that most people have little or no idea of what's actually happening around the world, or even their own country, as their source(s) of news never give them the full story.

For example, whenever we get an incident involving Israel & Palestine the ±«Óãtv will report it as an attack on innocent Palestinians, SKY will report it as an attack on innocent Israelis and everyone is left scratching their heads wondering what actually happened.
The same is true with almost every other issue being reported.

This means we have no mainstream news that's actually worth watching or reading and leaves us with Private Eye as the only source of reliable news available to us.

"...Clive Soley pushed me to answer the charges that 24-hour news is bad for politics..."

Pushed you? Oh Nick, tell me - you didn't, did you?

How awful for you.

The British Electoral system has to be the most undemocratic there is. Just run this by me, in the last election, Labour had just 35.3% of the vote, Tories 32.3% and Lib Dems 22.1, but what a different 3% makes for Labour, winning 356 seats against 198 for the Tories and 62 for the Libs.

So, come on everyone, how can 3% makes an extra 158 MP’s for Labour over the Conservatives?

Something is very wrong with the British system. It is possible for Labour to have less votes than the Tories in the next election but still have more MP’s, even a majority in the next parliament.

#30 zydeco

That is probaly part of the problem. Too many think we can all be individuals, have our own party that will be good just for us. We have to work together and accept that collectivism requires compromise. Divided we fall pray to the wishes of the rich.

Another wasted blog.
Why isn't Gordon Brown appearing in front of Chilcot before the election. This would be a better blog.
Why is any comment that is against Labour held in moderation until one or two days after the posting.
I do not understand why important issues are not priority for this site.

Gary #34:

You are assuming that it will make some difference who wins. The bankers win....every time. You lose...every time. Western governments may be corrupt beyond repair as the current situation attest. The major different between Beijing and London is that the banks run what happens in London and in China it is the families that license the banks that run what happens. The difference is not as great as they would like the public to believe. The differences in political parties are surface propaganda to fool the voter into thinking that they might actually benefit from the election of one party over another but the reality is the selection of the avenues of governmental abuse you wish to endure.

33. LUVITT!

#34 gary

So, what system would you like to have in place and what will you do to make it work?

Tell you what else you can have too much (well I have, anyway) and that's the stupid government information on tv telling us to drive 5 miles less and that dreadful scary one (for children particularly it's scary) about climate change.

Do they think we were born yesterday? Do they think we all subscribe to the emporer's new clothes theory of global warming?

I will highly respect the party which stands up and says what a lot of bunkum it is and that it is the SUN which warms the earth - we are responsible for 2% of it. Oh, and by the way, snow is not part of it. Snow has been in my life for decades in the winter, so the silly politicians that try and pin SNOW on climate change want their bumps felt.

Global warming, swine flu, and the war on terrorism (this government caused the terrorism in this country) are the ONLY policies they have.

Why should we believe them when they went to war on a lie?

Yes, you can tell them Nick, we are getting too much of the wrong sort of politics rammed down our throats and I for one am heartily fed up with it from people who are supposedly educated and should know better.

There!

If you or anyone you know is incensed by the govt. plan to axe the Freedom Pass, sign the NO. 10 petition:

41. Very Naughty Flamethrower.
I was keen to find out what a Freedom Pass was, so I followed your link to the petition. As a result, I, a Scot, have now signed the petition - for a London Bus Pass! I know your text says ".... sign the NO. 10 petition:...." May I respectfully ask that you modify your link such that the reader' is taken to the petition and not to an automatic sign-up. Many thanks.

i dont thinks its 24hr news thats the problem. its the lack of alternative political views being given airtime. question time for example. the same three parties and a journalist. you need all voices to be heard and then proper debate can be had. question time will not allow other political parties on their programme unless they have a certain percentage of the vote? but then they have journalists? and if you are a new party how do you get more votes if you dont gey any airtime. the media need to realise that the voting figures will only increase if new ideas and parties emegre that interest people and offer alternative solutions!

24 hour rolling news is bad for people not just politics.

There is a fascination that makes people just sit and watch it, again and again.

It also causes problems for politicians as they don't have time to cook up a response to anything..but that's their problem.

I think it actually inures one to the politicians too. When you've seen Gordon Broon stand up and make his various statements several times then you simply don't want to see him ever again, and we don't believe what he says anyway.

So, is Clive Soley right? Yes, but that's not all as the 15minute repetitions numb us all, and must do the same to you too, Nick.

I did like the way that the Hoon & Hewitt ruse was revealed in real time on the Daily Politics at 12.20 and then you popped up on the one o'clock news having to say it all again. It was also fun to watch the Labour politician read the Hoon & Hewitt letter on the live show, and see him trying not to show his reaction on his face.

Some of us must have had the fatal fascination of rolling news when 9/11 happened and we just sat and watched as the whole appalling thing unfolded before our eyes.

The ±«Óãtv news channel would be better to reduce the repetitions to 1 per hour rather than 4 + times per hour.

Happy to consult.

gary @ 34

"So, come on everyone, how can 3% makes an extra 158 MP’s for Labour over the Conservatives?"

It's to do with concentrations of the like minded ... Clowns tend to really congregate. Works against them because they stack up silly and pointless majorities in individual seats. Like winning a Cup game 7/0. You'd go through with 1/0 - six of your goals are wasted.

The main unfairness, however, is to the LibDems. They really have got a bone to pick with our electoral system.

PR might fix it.

bmc @ 42

"As a result, I, a Scot, have now signed the petition - for a London Bus Pass!"

I'll have it! ... if it's no use to you.

*46. As a Scot I feel duty bound to get a £1.00 (or cheaper) Ryanair flight day return so that I can spend the day on the bus and tube. Or I could sell it to you!

eye-wish wrote:
"That is probaly part of the problem. Too many think we can all be individuals, have our own party that will be good just for us.
We have to work together and accept that collectivism requires compromise. Divided we fall pray to the wishes of the rich."


Why can't we have collectivism, just with lots of small parties working together as part of a coalition government ?
That way we could have lots of small parties that actually represent their members instead of the few big parties we have now that only really represent their main donors and a small group of the party elite.

Or maybe do away with parties all together and have a system where the only people who can stand in an election are those who have been residents in that constituency for at least four years and combine this with a fixed term of four years and a maximum limit of two terms. This would get rid of the career politicians as well as the parachute candidates being dropped in from central office. Add in local Primary elections and we may even be on our way towards a real democracy.

i would love to hear some positive news but there is none,take todays announcement about inflation rising yet again, its time gordon printed some more money, its cheaper to use than buying andrex

#34 gary

So, what system would you like to have in place and what will you do to make it work?



PR would be nearer the will of the voters, but, as some Labour and Conservative supporters have told me in the past, that it would lead to a hung parliament and therefore would not work, so they say in their own self interest, seems to work in Europe, Russia and many other countries mind.

The British system was designed for a two party system, like the US, which has two parties involved in the political process. But, once you have an third and forth party, the voting goes haywire, for example the Lib Dems are very under represented in parliament.

The British system needs to be updated to include other parties, but this will not happen while both Labour and Tory still dominate the political process.

We may see some surprises in the next election, when UKIP and BNP starts to draw votes away from the Tories and Labour and therefore costing them some seats.

I agree with some of the other comments, especially about Bankers being the true masters, and the different in polities between the main parities, so similar but explained differently to suit themselves.

The Euro election last year was much fairer as it represented the actual number of votes for each party.

Britain was divided in local areas, eg, South West, North East etc, and EMP was elected based on the number of votes by PR in each area.

Any reason why this cannot be used for general elections in future?

sagamix 45

"It's to do with concentrations of the like minded ... Clowns [there's that infantile method of constructing an argument again] tend to really congregate....."

It's also to do with the fact that there are a lot of (Labour-voting) very small inner city constituencies - the modern equivalent of Rotten Boroughs, in fact.

The Conservatives' plan to even up the populations of the constituencies, and drop sixty-something MPs in the process, is a very sound one, in my opinion.

5. At 7:24pm on 19 Jan 2010, sagamix wrote:

... Clowns tend to really congregate.

===

Oooo, there you go again, just can't help yourself can you?

You just can't kick the habit can you, maybe patches would help.

You will feel better for it, eventually.

JR @ 52

"Infantile" ... hang on, let me just look that word up. Haven't come across it before.

Ah right, here it is.

"apposite and to the point"

Okay.

50

What your Conservative and Labour friends meant was that PR wouldn;t work because it would mean parliament would not work the way they wanted it to, i.e. they would have to compromise.
Coalition government has worked well in Scotland, seems to be working in Wales where no party has a overall majority.
Germany has had coalitions almost without break (I think they have only ever elected 2 majority governments since WW2), they seem to make it work and all elections are PR based.
Italy has been a bit of a basket case but then even there currently they are not much worse off that we have been.

The arguments about PR from the two main parties are all self-serving though Labour it was who gave PR to the devolved parliaments. I understand that they went a bit cold on the idea for the UK after they lost control in Scotland and Wales which they had never expected to do even with PR.

Hung parliaments under FPTP may have problems since there is an expectation that if the opposition can sufficiently frustrate the process of government then they gain electorally (it is not that the majority do not want to do things, just that the oppositions prevent them) i.e. hope to get a majority next time by portraying the opponent as being at fault.

Under PR you have to go out and win votes and people soon work out that there is always a point in voting since you can affect the result and direction far more readily. Rather than now where too many seats are considered safe and because people think they are they do not believe they can change it and so never try. A very small number of people make all the difference.

Nick:

Thanks to Lord Soley for his interview with Nick Robinson; And, I will
be listeneing to it shortly!

-Dennis Junior-

41
Thanks for bringing my attention to another piece of Labour government largesse which we can no longer afford.
Have to go back to the local bus pass in future as we cannot afford the free national one any longer due to the costs of subsidising it.

Any other recent free giveaways from the Government you can think of which need to be rescinded feel free to rant away.

Perhaps if Nick had been interviewed by a Conservative peer rather than a labour one the questions might have been slightly different.

#34, 45 et al.

The reasons why Labour are over-represented are several - what amuses me is the comments on many bloggs complaining that the tories will be elected (presumably) to power 'on only 40-42%' of the vote - when labour were elecetd on 35%!

The reasons are as follows:

1) Labour-held constituencies generally have fewer voters - this means each vote is worth more - and thus MPS are elected with fewer votes.

2) At the moment, Labour holds more marginal seats with majorities of less than 3,000 - (54 of them as opposed to 31 conservative) this means that their votes are more efficient - they have just enough votes in the area to win.

3) To the contrary many areas have massive Tory majorities - where the votes are in effect wasted (too many) but in the marginals a lot of their votes are also wasted - many votes for no seats.

4) In Wales and Scotland (Traditionally Labour strongholds) there are more seats than there should be on strict population densities.

5) For the conservatives to get a majority then about 200,000 people in the marginals must switch from Labour to Conservative - this is about 4% of the people who voted last time. Of course in practice many more will have to switch - this is the optimum figure.

There have been lots of complaints (in the right-leaing press) of Labour allocating additional resources to its core voting areas. This can be explained in that Labour-voting areas tend to be poorer and needs the additional resources however it strikes me as not being efficient politically - the additional resources should have gone to the marginal seats - where each person's vote is that much more valuable.

Below are the marginal seats. Harrow West needs an 8% swing. Crewe and Nantwich is a few above.

Harrow West
Ellesmere Port and Neston
Edinburgh North and Leith
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr
Newport West
Norwich North
Chorley
Leeds North East
Dagenham and Rainham
Cambridge
Luton South
Warwickshire North
Wakefield
Batley and Spen
Lancashire West
Vale of Clwyd
Renfrewshire East
Thurrock
Telford
Hyndburn
Warwick and Leamington
Weaver Vale
Amber Valley
Ipswich
Hampstead and Kilburn
Brighton Pavilion
Stockton South
Tooting
Tynemouth
Nuneaton
Kingswood
Barrow and Furness
Morecambe and Lunesdale
Waveney
Bolton North East
Carlisle
Dewsbury
Hammersmith
Reading West
Pudsey
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport
Dudley North
Stirling
Bolton West
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross
Northampton North
Dover
Keighley
Copeland
Ochil and South Perthshire
Dudley South
Leicestershire North West
Poplar and Limehouse
Gloucester
Wirral South
Gedling
Halesowen and Rowley Regis
Elmet and Rothwell
Edinburgh South
Chatham and Aylesford
High Peak
Halifax
Stevenage
Bristol North West
Bedford
Rossendale and Darwen
Hendon
Eltham
Brigg and Goole
Ribble South
Brentford and Isleworth
Warrington South
Lincoln
Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Great Yarmouth
Westminster North
Harrow East
Worcester
Cleethorpes
Derbyshire South
Tamworth
Leeds North West
Dumfries and Galloway
Bury North
Sefton Central
Swindon North
Northampton South
Bradford West
Brighton Kemptown
Wolverhampton South West
Camborne and Redruth
Pendle
Redditch
Burton
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
Ross Skye and Lochaber
Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South
Broxtowe
Birmingham Edgbaston
Vale of Glamorgan
Loughborough
Watford
Stafford
Dorset South
Swindon South
Aberconwy
Corby
Colne Valley
Milton Keynes North
Calder Valley
Gordon
Cardiff North
Dartford
Stourbridge
Chester, City of
Stroud
Hastings and Rye
Milton Keynes South
Ealing Central and Acton
Harlow
Basildon South and East Thurrock
Hove
Orkney and Shetland
Portsmouth North
Battersea
Croydon Central
Crawley
Somerset North East

I'm waiting for the 'Nick Robinson interviews Nick Robinson' interview.

Should be a cracker.

I've just looked at Clive 'Lord' Soley's voting record. He is obviously a free thinking and highly principled man of integrity.
And I am a blue monkey blowing a bubble pipe.

60#

Thought you looked familiar. :-)

#1:

Sorry, that's a completely pointless idea. If large number of people spoil their ballot papers all that will happen is that the Labour/Tory duopoly will continue to run the country (in whichever minor variant of the flavour gets in next time, which would presumably be the Tory flavour).

If you want change, then you need to vote for someone other than the Labour/Tory party. Doesn't matter who it is. Vote LibDem, UKIP, Green, Jury Team, whichever independent is standing in your area, etc. If enough people did that, then things would really change. If everyone sits at home thinking that a vote for anyone other than Labour/Tory is a waste of time, then we'll be forever stuck with Labour/Tory.

I think 24 hour is not nessarily bad although the same stories are repeated. I do have a problem with news programmes pretending there is such thing as neutrality when there obviously is not. I mean if they were neutral you would never have an opinion on anything. So it is always important to know what world view each news station has.

#30, Zydeco:

"So, which Party do I join? Is there a central co-ordinaating office for Independent candidates? Probably not, so no party to join."

Actually, there is something very much like that. Have a look at the Jury Team. Their only policies are on the political process itself: policies on health, education, defence etc etc are left up to individual candidates. I was quite tempted to vote for their candidate at the euro elections last year, although in the end I didn't as I disagreed quite strongly with my local candidate's policies in some areas. However, the idea behind the Jury Team is a good one, and I would be very tempted to vote for them next time if they had a different candidate with different policies.

64. At 09:52am on 20 Jan 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

Actually, there is something very much like that. Have a look at the Jury Team. Their only policies are on the political process itself: policies on health, education, defence etc etc are left up to individual candidates. I was quite tempted to vote for their candidate at the euro elections last year, although in the end I didn't as I disagreed quite strongly with my local candidate's policies in some areas. However, the idea behind the Jury Team is a good one, and I would be very tempted to vote for them next time if they had a different candidate with different policies.

=======================================================================

There was a documentary following one of their candidates in scotland, and I have to say I thought - "what an idiot".

He told voters to vote for him, then he'd listen to them all and decide what they wanted him to do. So no manifesto then? What happens if only myself and several thousand BNP voters voted him in?

Its like voting to decide that we can vote.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

just tried to get on R5 live in support of Dannett, but the are only interested in "hostile" people talking about his motives, rather what is to be done about the state of the defence serices and the supporting industry and independance from the US.

its the ±«Óãtv that should be scrapped for excluding the "people" from politices

#65, sweetAnybody:

Sorry, looks like my first attempt to reply to you fell foul of the mods. Probably a result of the word I used to describe the candidate you mentioned.

My point was this. I maintain that the principle behind what the Jury Team stand for is a good one. However, since they have no central policies, then there is always going to be a lot of variation from one candidate to the next, and it's possible that any individual candidate, like the one you described, could be a bit of a chump*.

So whether you vote for them or not is going to depend on the individual candidate they put up in your seat. If they put up a chump, then don't vote for them.


* I hope that word is a bit more mod-friendly than the one I used last time.

68. At 1:45pm on 20 Jan 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

* I hope that word is a bit more mod-friendly than the one I used last time.

I did wonder what you'd written to offend them!!

I assume you saw the documentary I was talking about - it was really bizarre.

I still relish the Ceaucescu on the balcony moment when he realised it was all up - pity it will never happen to Gordon Boomandbust or any of the same old same old we get here.

As far as I'm aware, the public have never been included in political debate in this country, certainly not in the last decade or so.

As soon as anyone not in politics or the media asks any inconvenient questions they are put down, even lied to by those who are.
With the current state of politics in the UK, the way Labour has eroded all our rights it is now practically illegal to even question the 'democratic' process any more.