U.K. General Election 2005

[Anarcho-Socialist]

The Prime Minister is expected to call an election in May this year. Who will you be voting for in this election?

[theresistance]

1. If Tony Blair wins this election

I want to find a new planet to live on...first Howard in Aust, then Chimpenstein in US...

[non sociopath skin]

4. As Howard is the only alternative, tr ...

... I should pop along to Lunn Poly Intergalactic this week. The space shuttles may be booked up by May.

The Skin

[legin]

10. Unfortunaltly current bookie odds

that I saw recently:

1/7 Labour
6/1 Conservative
50/1 Lib Dems

[Kal]

67. Don't vote, spoil your ballot paper

http://www.ragemonkey.com/election.htm

[non sociopath skin]

68. And let someone else decide who runs the show?

Thanks, but no thanks. I pay my subs and I use my vote. It says at the top of this page, "DEMOCRATIC Underground." That's why I'm here.

The Skin

[Esra Star]

72. Hey Cal, first post, welcome to the wild ride,,,

Is there any talk of the virtual referendum on the war?
It would be nice if everybody wrote "troops home"
or some such, on the ballot.
If enough people write it on, it really shakes up the
incumbent.
It is very meaningful democracy.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

75. The Iraq War isn't much of an issue in the campaign

It's the Conservatives who are dictating the issues (with the help of the RW tabloids) and they're mainly focusing on race-baiting Travelling peoples and anti-immigration in general.

I'm surprised to not hear more about the Iraq War from the Liberal Democrats, it could help them in constituencies with large muslim communities.

[T_i_B]

2. Not deciding yet...

till I see who is on the ballot paper. Last time round I had Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and UKIP candidates to choose from. I don't know if the same parties and the same candidates other then the sitting Conservative MP and the Labour challenger will be standing.

[D-Notice]

3. I'm going to wait & see who's here in Chester...

Last time I did a protest vote for the Greens, but this time I'll probably end up voting tactically for the Lib Dems to punish Tony's Cronies for any of the following reasons:

1. Iraq/Generally being up Shrub's arse
2. ID cards: why? They don't prevent terrorism; waste of money; more expensive computer equipment which'll crash like it always does
3. HMP Belmarsh: secret trails & evidence (obviously no-one's heard of the Magna Carta)
4. Allowing a suspect's previous convictions to be allowed in court - whatever happened to "Presumed innocent until proven guilty"? Revealing previous convicitons leads to a presumption of guilt
5. Not wanting an elected House of Lords, but prefering an appointed one
6. David Blunkett: Pandering to the tabloids/knee-jerk reactions
7. A refusal to create heroin clinics, despite evidence of their effectiveness in reducing crime

All I know is that I'm not voting for any of the following:

Tories,
Labour,
UKIP/Veritas,
BNP

[non sociopath skin]

5. I see where you're coming from. However ...

... I should do a bit of research into what the LibDems are likely to do on these matters in coalition with either the Bliarite ChristDems or the Party of the Night, should there be no overall majority.

I wouldn't hold your breath. For example, the local LibDems hereabouts tout an attitude to Crime and Punishment and Drugs well to the right of Blunkett.

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

6. Liberal Democrat here

Our MP is Lib Dem, and it's a moderately marginal seat - the previous MP was Tory John Patten, eek!!!

Anyway, I refuse to vote for Blair.

However, I voted Green in the Euro-election.

[fedsron2us]

7. I quit the Labour Party over the illegal invasion of Iraq.

They will not get my vote again until British troops are withdrawn from the country and Blair is removed as leader. I tend to support the Liberal Democrat policies on Proportional Representation and Europe but I think most of the rest of their platform is opportunism dressed up as conviction. The Tories lost what little soul they had when they made Thatcher their leader. They deserve to burn in electoral hell for all eternity. My view is that all the major parties have taken the corporate shilling and are not to be trusted. As a consequence our political agenda is set by big business not the voters. Given this situation and the fact that I reside in a constituency that returned a Conservative MP with a solid majority during two Labour landslides I think I will just write obscenities on the ballot paper. Truth be told I think that the voters should always have the option to cast a vote for a candidate called - NONE OF THE ABOVE. I would like the law altered so that if a majority of ballots were cast for this option then the MP would be chosen by lot from among the adult population of the constituency. It worked for the ancient Greeks so I do not see why it should not work for us.

[non sociopath skin]

8. While I understand your anger and your resignation, feds ...

I have never seen abstention as the solution to anything - it would simply be an abdication of responsibility and an open invitation to those whose views I loathe to choose a government for me. It would also be a betrayal of those who fought for the vote for me and people like me.

If I have to vote for the least worst option, then I at least do my bit to stem the tide of the worst worst option. And I thank Michael Howard for reminding me of what that would be ....

The Skin

[Zuni]

18. My point exactly

I'll take Tony Blair and Labour any day over Michael Howard and the Tories---no matter how wrong B-liar has been at times, he is certainly prefferable to Howard. I wish Iain Duncan Smith was still head of the tories and made the choice even easier for Britain.

Face it, the UK's problems would not improve if progressives abstain, the Tories win and especially if the BNP picks up a seat

[Vladimir]

14. Vote RESPECT if a candidate is standing in your area

we need all the votes we can get to be noticed after this election...

[Zuni]

19. what is RESPECT?

I have never heard of that Party

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. George Galloway and some supporting groups

mainly Muslim. Their main position has been opposition to the Iraq invasion.

http://www.respectcoalition.org/

[Zuni]

26. Not to offend anyone

But George Galloway seems a rather unsavory character. To me he seems not 'anti-war' but 'pro-saddam' and pro 'anti-western' dictator in general.
I read he was a huge apologist for the Soviet Union and communist regimes in general, and now seems to be friendly to any regime that is anti western.

I still believe he had some disturbing connections to the former Iraqi regime, even if it was the Telegraph that found them. After all, he spent Christmas one year with Tariq Aziz!

This is the kind of leftist that George Orwell warned about, one who shills for very anti-progressive governments and is not really a true progressive, but just anti-western.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

29. Galloway is an unsavory character

The Telegraph allegations did prove to be unfounded, but he is still a ridiculous apologist for Saddam and other selected authoritarian regimes. Back in 1994 Galloway visited Iraq to meet Saddam; when they met Galloway called Saddam "a hero" and told him that he "admired him". He makes me cringe.

[Zuni]

30. Reminds me of Ramsey Clark over here

Ramsey Clark was an Attorney General in 1967-1969. He was so unsavory, neither major party wanted anything to do with him. He got the job because his father was a Supreme Court Justice and Lyndon Johnson wanted him off the bench so he could appoint Thurgood Marshall (a native of Baltimore, Maryland like my dad) as the first black Supreme Court Justice. Marshall was a civil rights atty who helped in the fight to desegregate southern public schools in 1954.

Ramsey Clark is one of Saddam's defense attorneys now (on C-Span he called Saddam a 'man of great character'. He went over there and hung out with Saddam and Co (he may have even see Galloway there). He also visited Slobodam Milosevic and the other Serbian rogues, he was an atty for a Rwandan war criminal hiding in the US who had an entire church congregation, his congregation, massacred. He gave a speech in Tehran while the Iranians were holding many Americans hostage in 1980 about how the US is essentially the Great Satan. He even defended a former Nazi concentration camp guard (he had a memorable quote at that trial, saying that this camp guard was too old to stand trial for "so called crimes". He is a moonbat of the first order, a man as nutty as Lyndon LaRouche or George Galloway.

These pro-dictator, knee jerk anti western left wingers are an embarrassment. Orwell, a principled progressive, hated these gtypes and wrote about them often, ridiculing their defense of Stalin and the Soviet Union in general. He described them so accurately---I wish I could find the quotes.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

31. I didn't know about Ramsey Clark, thanks for the info n/t

[Vladimir]

33. He of course said no such things

he said that he admired the courage (of the Iraqi people) which was conviniently edited by the helpful media. The Telegraph allegations not only proved unfounded but were almost certainly malicious considering the way in which they were 'discovered'. This man, who was demonstrating against Saddam when Rumsfeld was selling his poisoon gas, has been demonised by a media who can't accept public figures calling the leadership what they are - war criminals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Vladimir, I've always wondered what he did say

before "Sir, I salute your courage ..." - can you put it in context for us?

[Vladimir]

36. He was speaking to Saddam as the Iraqi leader

and hence as standing for the Iraqis - so when he says "your" courage he is referring to the Iraqi people. He would have judged better to have said 'your people's ..." directly, of course, but its not an uncommon shortening when speaking to a representative of a group. This in any case was what he has always claimed, and considering that he was protesting against Saddam throughout the 80s I see no reason to doubt it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Well, it could be

I've always found it strange that neither side has ever shown us what he said before it, because that might make it clear what the context was.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

38. If he was referring to the Iraqi people, he would said "Iraqi people"

and not "your courage" (referring to Saddam), unless Galloway was incredibly naive or something.

[Vladimir]

40. As I have already pointed out, this man was protesting against

Saddam back when he was our all too convinient ally, when the rest of the world didn't want to know about those gassed Kurds that it now holds up as a justification and context for everything. I don't think his track record on the issue is in queestion, and if he says (under oath one might add) that he was referring to the Iraqi people, I see no reason to disbelieve him.

[Zuni]

59. Did he not stay with tariq Aziz for Christmas Holiday?

I don't recall many anti-Saddam politicos staying with the #2 man in the regime

[Wat_Tyler]

70. I believe what he actually said was 'Sir, I salute your indefatigability'.

That's something that could be taken several different ways.

[Zuni]

58. actually

The US never sold poison gas to Iraq. Most of that came from Soviet Bloc nations and West Germany.
The US did give Saddam a huge sum of money that clearly could have been used to purchase such items.

[Vladimir]

66. Do yourself a favour, check the facts,

http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

[Wat_Tyler]

69. Galloway has consistently been cleared when investigated.

I think it's fair to say that his pro-Arab stance has caused him to do many things that to us look unsavoury, but I would not say he was pro-Saddam. An equally valid interpretation of his involvement in Iraqi politics is that he was trying to reach out to Iraqis and challenge the Hussein regime through action.

[Pert_UK]

9. I'll wait to see if Kilroy-Silk has his party up and running by then...

:evilgrin:

I joke of course!

I can't wait to see that self-obsessed insane wanker get laughed off the stage during the results.

[smedwed]

11. Lib dems

The lib dems are good on a local scale but
you can't trust them to run a country :P

[non sociopath skin]

13. The Libs are good on a local scale?

But not good enough to run the country?

Your elucidation on both points would be helpful to me.

The Skin

[smedwed]

16. lol

They try hard in local election and normally care
about the people. But they aren't really leaders,
they would try but i think they would make a mess
of running the country. They haven't been in power
since the Liberals were in almost a century ago.
They don't really have the experience.

[Zuni]

20. The last liberal PM

was Lloyd George---and look at the job he did. I think he was a wanker

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. introduced state pensions

was part of the government that vastly decreased the power of the Lords. He has some good points.

[Zuni]

24. Yes, and he was an opponent of Douglas haig

Lloyd George would have removed that butcher from command if he had the chance.
Shame he didn't.
George did keep Haig from getting every last bit of cannon fodder he requested, which is also a plus.

[smedwed]

27. Lloyd George

I admit Lloyd George had some good points but that
was a long time ago things are different now.
Also while Haig's tactics were rather bloody and not
always effective- he won. No one had ever fought a war like
WW1 before, he had to do the best he could improvise. Millions
died but he is not solely to blame.

[Zuni]

28. He was callous and indifferent to his soldiers

He is responsible for the Somme and Passenchedaele. On July 1, 1916 Haig's first major offensive was started and 60,000 British soldiers became casualties---20,000 killed outright, many more crippled and would later die of complications.
He kept throwing men into this holocaust for virtually no gains for months. 420,000 British soldiers were killed, wounded or captured.

At Passenchendaele (third battle of Ypres), Haig had no idea what the conditions were like at the front. He pushed an offensive for moths in the rainy season in a below sea level area that became virtual quicksand. Thousands of British and Commonwealth/Empire soldiers simply drowned when they fell over and got stuck in deep pools of filth water.
Tens of thousands died needlessly because Haig kept sending more troops to trudge through knee deep muck in an offensive that had little chance for sucsess.

Haig was a butcher, period. He is responsible for the deaths of an enormous number of young men. He treated his men like they valueless automotons, there simply to provide endless cannon fodder.
He was a general of little talent, and even less compassion for his men.

[smedwed]

32. I know

I didn't say it wasn't a bloodthirsty and pointless war,
its just that his tactics weren't that different to the other
generals in ww1, the Commonwealth lost less men than the German
army did.

[Vladimir]

12. RESPECT

at least, I will be canvassing - I can't vote, nt being a UK citizen and all that...

[non sociopath skin]

15. OK, Vlad. Sell Respect to me ...

Why should a jaundiced old lefty like me vote for yous?

The Skin

[Vladimir]

34. Because we are the only party standing

with a very clear position on imperialism - unlike the Liberal Democrats we opposed both the Afganistan and Iraq wars. Unlike the Lib Dems, we do not support a continued presence of British troops in Iraq. We have a well defined progressive policy on Europe - in that we welcome immigration but oppose an EU which is an undemocratic vehicle for the furthering of business interests across Europe. Unlike the Lib Dems, we recognise that serious political change in Britain cannot be confined to a bit of extra taxation here and there - there needs to be a systemic rethink of the way Britain runs itself. That is the spiel - if you want a pregmatic reason to vote RESPECT, its that even one RESPECT MP in parliament means one MP who will not be afraid to call things as they are, who will not be afraid to use 'impolite' language with the establishment.

If you are wondering why the comparison to the Lib Dems, its cos they are our main rivals for support around my area. We tried to get the Greens onboard, and failed, but we generally cooperate with them and will probably not be standing in opposition to their candidates (we have no ambitions to stand in all consticuencies nor would that be practical anyhow).

[Anarcho-Socialist]

39. Does RESPECT favour withdrawing from the EU, or just reforming it?

[Vladimir]

41. Here you go

Below is the link to our position in Europe, and it really isn't as simple as either 'withdrawal' or 'reform'

http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=225

From my perspective, having lived all across Europe, it is becoming increasingly clear that the EU is a case of wishful thinking on all our parts. I have spent years hoping to see reforms, only to see a further entrenchment of undemocratic principle throughout. Not being a nationalist I would enjoy seeing Europe united, but not at the expense of its citizens. My hope is that if a few countries reject the proposed constitution it might serve as a wake-up call to properly democratize EU procedures, but I ain't holding me breath.

[non sociopath skin]

42. I've read your European policy and I remain unclear ....

... about whether you'd withdraw if the other EU members didn't agree with your terms (which they wouldn't).

One other quickie. Would "taxing the rich" in itself pay for the social reforms which you desire? And if so, how "rich" would "rich" be?

The Skin

[Vladimir]

43. Our complete position paper

http://www.respectcoalition.org/pdf/041103_resolutions.pdf

this is a list of all resolutions passed by the 2004 conference and will hopefully answer most of your questions. As you can see from it, raising taxes on the 'rich' is only one aspect of our proposed solution - we also seek the renationalisation of key industries which have been in disarray since being privatised (like the railways for example), a change to proportional representation to effect a cultural change in British politics and make it easier for voices challenging the status quo to be heard, etc.

[non sociopath skin]

46. Re-nationalise the railways, fine ...

... but I'm not sure how much consensus you'd get on the left for re-nationalising the other "key industries". And, with respect, I don't recollect the nationalised industries (railways included) being a big money-spinner for the state at the best of times. BTW, if you're including the coal industry, the revenue needed to kick-start it again would, I'd venture, preclude any net gain for quite some time ...

The Skin

[Vladimir]

49. We don't include coal

to the best of my knowledge but that is a little beside the point. It is not a question of renationalising to get cash cows for the government, it is a question of halting and reversing the current trend towards more and more private investment in what should be public services. Take the 'right to buy' for example - Maggie's flagship - ending it and comitting to build more affordable housing would positively lose money, but is necessary to alleviate the problem of homelesness which won't go away just by expanding or tweaking the system that has been producting steady increases in it (the early 90s aside).

[non sociopath skin]

51. So the miners in this constituency who've lost their jobs ...

... when their mine closed in highly suspicious circumstances, wouldn't get any help from Respect, then?

And would you eliminate ALL private investment from nationalised industries? One of the advantages that the SNCF in France had over British Rail was that it was allowed to work with private investors in order to modernise its systems. Result? One of the best rail services in the world.

And who is going to build all this wonderful new affordable housing? The Construction Companies certainly aren't unless you megasubsidise them....

The Skin

[Vladimir]

55. Of course the miners would get help,

but what they really need is compensation (on a much larger scale than what Labour has been providing) and retraining, not some fanasy of re-opening the mines (in my own opinion).

As for public-private partnerships, I see them as a worst of both worlds solution - after all British rail as it is today is a private venture underwritten and regulated by the government, and it can lead to more inefficiency and poorer services than either strain on its own. The example of Deutche Bahn is instructive...

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1087168,00.html

In any case, British rail has tried private ownership, and public -private hand holding, and neither have worked very well. The public sector should be allowed to take control of it again, and what lessons there are from the pre-privatisation era will be learned.

[T_i_B]

44. I asked RESPECT about their EU policy...

...at the time of the EU elections. Essentially it's similar to the Green's policy from what I could see, but the Greens seem more interested and knowlegable about the EU than RESPECT, who seemed only to be interested in discussing Iraq.

Here's the UK parties thread on the Greens & RESPECT BTW.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x61

[Vladimir]

45. The RESPECT EU policy is evolving

and while we strated out as a single-issue party, RESPECT is eveolving policies across the whole range of issues important to the general public. That they are somewhat vague at the moment should hardly come as a surprise, considering that the party is still in the process of deciding what exactly it wants to be - as an alliance of so many different (in many cases tiny) left-wing groups, maintaining unity is paramount, and the Iraq issue is where the unity is most solid (and where the votes are), hence why this gets emphasised.

[non sociopath skin]

47. With respect, Vlad, this doesn't inspire me to vote for you ...

... if for no other reason than you seem to see in-fighting and jockeying for position as more important than giving us dispossessed old Lefties a viable (if imperfect) piece of driftwood to cling to in these troubled times.

It's all very well playing up the anti-war angle, but I'm not prepared to entrust the country (or Europe) to a single-issue lobby group, however much I may agree with it. And as I suggested in the postings above, your economics don't seem to rise much above sixth-form debating society level.

Sorry, Brother.

The Skin

[Vladimir]

48. Its not a question of in-fighting actually

its a question of what happens when you bring together tens of disparate left splinter groups - if you are telling me you expect a unified position overnight then with all due respect brother, you gotta be kidding me. And actually even that is unfair, because we do have solid positions on any number of issues, but it takes time to develop them on all issues. In any case, get real - you wouldn't be voting for us to get someone to run your country (not now), you would be voting to ensure a voice against Blair that rises above Kennedy's 'I don't like the war but the occupation's OK kind of claptrap'. As for the economics, I'll address that above.

[non sociopath skin]

50. So in voting for your fragmented, currently disunited party ...

... I'd also be voting for someone who doesn't expect to run the country for real. And by so doing, there's a real chance of letting in an even more right-wing, xenophobic and neo-con friendly party by default.

Thanks, Vlad, but no thanks.

The Skin

[Vladimir]

52. LOL, if you think we are deluded enough to think

we can win this general election... now that really wouldn't be a party worht voting for.

[non sociopath skin]

53. Of course I don't think you can win ....

... and, as you yourself have pointed out, in a "first-past-the-post" system, you wouldn't even have any influence. So why vote for you and risk a Howard government which, in every respect that YOU could identify, would be even worse than Bliar's?

The Skin

[Vladimir]

54. Never is a long time...

political parties have to be built up, political change doesn't come overnight. If you never vote for a party you agree with (which has a very realistic chance of winning 1 or 2 seats in parliament), you will never see that change. It is not impossible that Britain will adopt PR or partial PR sooner or later, and RESPECT needs to be in a position to take advantage of that when it happens, which is why it needs votes now. The last time Britain had a socialist MP, it was still in the middle of rationing, so it really would be a big deal.

And lets be realistic about something else - a Howard government is not the alternative. If anything, you can comfort yourself in the knowledge that damaging Labour *could* lead (at "worst") to a hung parliament and a Lib-Lab coalition. Me, I don't care much for the Lib Dems, but a lot of the left would view that sort of coalition as infinitely preferable to the Labour government of today.

[non sociopath skin]

56. I think that your statement needs clarifying, Vlad ....

"The last time Britain had a socialist MP, it was still in the middle of rationing, so it really would be a big deal."

And who was that, pray? Answer carefully. I am not likely to be the only person here to challenge you.

I love this emphasis on a New Labour/ LibDem coalition.

Please note:
(1) Voting for Respect in a Tory/Labour marginal - of which there are many - would let in the Tory, not the LibDem.
(2) On many issues, the LibDems are to the right even of Bliar and would not be likely to be radicalised if given Ministerial Limousines.
(3) Judging by their performance in Local Government, the LibDems are AT LEAST as likely to be comfortable in a coalition with the Tories as they are with the Bliarites.

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

57. I agree with your first two points

Although the differences between the two parties on Europe and social issues would be too great for the Tories and the LibDems to form a coalition in Westminster.

[Vladimir]

61. So it was a bit earlir than that

look up Shapurji Saklatvala, Labour/Communist MP for Battersea, 1924-1929. The point, if anything, is enhanced. Careful enough answer?

As for Lib-Lab, it is not a coalition I would have much love for, as noted in the previous post, but many lefties would. If you aren't one of them, fine and well, but do yourself a favour and don't lose any sleep over a possible Tory government, because it isn't going to happen...

[non sociopath skin]

62. So Saklatvala was the last "Socialist" MP, huh?

So what was Aneurin Bevan, quoted in your strapline? Chopped liver? Ever heard of Dennis Skinner? Tony Benn? Michael Meacher? And that's without even trying. And if Respect feels itself closer to hard-line pro-Soviet Communists than to democratic socialists, that's another reason for not voting for them.

No Tory Government , eh? That's exactly what they said in 1970 ... Harold Wilson was going to WALK it ...

Go figure.

The Skin

[Vladimir]

63. No, they weren't socialists

at least not in the sense of coming from outside the Labour party. It has been a long long time since a socialist independant of Labour could hope to get elected. Maybe 30 years ago your protestations about socialists in Labour would have been merited, but today Labour is proudly an anti-socialist party, and the hope of reclaiming it is precisely nil. So if it makes you feel better, vote for Labour in the hope that Brown/Cook/Prescott/(insert pet Labour MP who you like and has a semblance of a chance) might turn it around, but its a forlorn hope. And RESPECT is not a social-democrat party, but if that is the criterion for acceptance in your neck of the 'left' woods, you were never voting for us anyhow.

PS In the 1920s, any socialist would have been pro-Soviet.

[non sociopath skin]

64. Okay. Let me get my head around this ....

... socialists were only socialists in the last 30 years if they came from OUTSIDE the Labour Party? Anybody else here agree?

BTW I'm not sure that your final statement is correct. And it CERTAINLY would have been incorrect in the 30s.

The Skin

[Vladimir]

65. I am not doing a very good job of

making myself clear, am I? There have been socialists in the Labour party, and people who thought themselves socialists. There is, after all, David Blunkett... however, there has also been a large body of socialists outside Labour. This is the first election since a very long time that a socialist standing outside Labour had a hope of winning a seat in parliament running directly against a Labour candidate. Which is important because unless we wish to fantasise, it is time to admit that the Labour party is lost as a vehicle for bringing socialism to the UK.

[Zuni]

17. I am not British

But I would vote for Labour, even with Tony Blair and his stance on Iraq.
Whatever problems with Labour might be, it would be a damn shame if the upper class twit party got control of the government or more seats than they already have after so many years as the opposition.
Whatever problemns you have with Blair, it would not be better with a Tory as PM.

[non sociopath skin]

22. Sadly, that's how my logic is shaping up, Zuni.

I loathe Bliar but better the soft Tory than the harder one.

I fear that Americans have had to make that kind of choice in the past, too ...

The Skin

[Zuni]

25. Yep. There are too few real leaders out there

Yes, I have had to hold my nose while I voted more than once. What I would give for am FDR

[non sociopath skin]

60. Indeed. You don't miss the water till the well runs dry.

The Skin

[Atlanticist]

73. So let me get this straight -

you're going to vote for Tony Blair (or "Bliar" as you term him), after all he's done in Iraq over the past 2 years !!

Man, what a crying shame. The man is an absolute disgrace, and to think I'd cast my ballot for that smirking duplicitous war criminal makes me want to throw up.

Lib Dem here, and hang the consequences - at least they've been consistently opposed to the Iraq war from the start.They also have a sensible governing strategy, from raising taxes on the wealthy to improving civil liberties.

I'm sorry, but in Britain, we do have an alternative to an increasingly shrill, race-baiting Tory party, and the party of Tony Blair - it's the Liberal Democrats, who after all already hold 70 seats in Parliament.

(I live in a Tory-held Labour/Tory marginal BTW)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

74. I think he's voting against the Tories

rather than giving a ringing endorsement of Tony Blair.

I would much prefer a Green Party government (I know how likely that is going to happen), but I'd rather take the Labour Party over any Tory government.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

77. I thought

That the Lib Dems only have 54 or 55 seats in parliament, not 70?

And while in some seats a Lib Dem may be an alternative as an MP, there is no alternative to a Labour or Tory government, and so I'll only be voting for the Lib Dems if it looks as though they have a better chance of beating the Tories in my seat than Labour do.

P.S. While I agree that TB is "Smirking" and "Duplicitous", "War criminal" isn't accurate, I think. "War monger", possibly?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

78. The Lib Dems have 51 seats

70 is their "target" and if they get close to that number then they'll consider it a success.

I am someone who is "voting against" the Tories. This means voting for Labour in my local constituency - although I'd vote for Lib Dems if they were the one's challenging the Tories. Despite this, I'm closer to the Green Party ideologically.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. They won 52 in the 2001 election

won 2 more in by-elections since then, and gained one by defection - Paul Marsden, who has just defected back to Labour. I'm not sure if anyone counts as an MP now (possibly they do till Monday, but Parliament won't meet again), sdo whether you count him as Lib Dem or Labour is debatable. So "54 or 55" is pretty accurate.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

80. Oh, I'd forgotten about the By-Elections

How many seats do you see the Lib Dems getting this time?

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. 65, perhaps?

It looks like there aren't many easy ones for them to pick up.

[T_i_B]

71. First UK General Election Kick

:kick:

[Maiden England]

76. I'm excited to be actually able to vote in something

:evilgrin:

Had to suffer through the US joke of a GE, worked my a$$ off for Kerry :eyes:
Still haven't gotten my US citizenship due to complete disillusion with the US. Still, that allows me to be proud of just being a British expat and of my ability to vote in the upcoming UK GE (which by the way is wholly thankful to the DU - through which I found someone to cosign my registration!). I'm registered in respect of Islington South and Finsbury, which is the last place I lived.
I'll be voting LibDem, as I did in the last 2 elections. It may well have some weight this time round as my last MP was Chris Smith, who is not running for re-election. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed.
Having said that, I think a Lib-Lab coalition would be the most advantageous outcome. The bloody nose to Blair and Labour, they deserve, in combination with the Libs getting a say in policies, hopefully a more anti-up-bushes-arse stance in that respect, and more antiwar would be nice.
I'm really disgusted with the direction the Conservatives have taken. I was firmly a Thatcherite Tory back when I was younger, a fully paid up member of the party, and proud of it. They've completely lost the plot IMO, oh and I got a lot more liberal after Uni (damn liberal institutions :P).
Still I'll be proud to vote, as its such an important right.