Categorised | Conservatives, General |

Cameron’s offer of open primaries is pure tokenism

Whilst I accept that David Cameron is demonstrating some leadership in terms of electoral reform, his latest proposals are so limited as to leave him open to the accusation of political tokenism. He has suggested that he is willing to open the Conservative candidate list to anyone “who wants to apply”, using what he describes as a system of “open primaries” where everyone in a constituency can vote at public meetings to select their prospective Conservative MP.  

However, in typical Cameron style, he limits the risk. Instead of making this policy widespread, by insisting that all Conservative MP’s stand for re-selection, he has stated that this policy will only be implemented in areas where Conservative MP’s have announced their intention to retire or stand down. At the moment, that is just 5 seats, which, even based on the current number of Conservative MP’s (190), would account for just over 2.5%. If the Conservatives are successful in getting into government, these candidates, chosen by the people, would likely amount to much less than 2% of the total. In other words, it will make little or no difference. Pure, unadulterated tokenism.

Cameron needs to demonstrate that he is a man of conviction, we have had 12 years of tokenism from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. At the very least, Cameron should insist that his entire front bench stand for re-selection. However, I would like to see him go further and provide the people of this country with the opportunity to select their preferred Conservative candidate, in every constituency. That is true democracy. If the people don’t like his preferred candidate, then that is the will of the people, you can’t get more democratic than that. I am encouraged that he has stated that candidates would not be rejected because they had no experience of politics, that is also a step in the right direction, but if Cameron wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to go all the way. I personally believe it will strengthen his party, not weaken it and if he loses a few ‘mates‘ along the way, then that is the will of the people he claims to want to serve.

When we look at a potential new leader, it is essential that, as well as taking into account their policies, we look at the leaders principles and judgement. In the case of Julie Kirkbride, David Cameron has come out to defend her, stating that her case was “different” to that of her husband Andrew Mackay. That is total piffle and he knows it. Kirkbride and Mackay are married, both had to have known about the arrangement to maximise the ‘Second Home Allowance and, of course, as a family unit, Kirkbride would have been a benificiary of this arrangement. If David Cameron can’t see what everyone else can, then he is not fit to lead the party, much less this country, because he will be no better than Gordon Brown. He must, at the very least, insist that Julie Kirkbride stands for re-selection in an ‘open primary’, which would leave it to her constituents to determine whether her behaviour was acceptable, not him. Having put up with 12 years of New Labour, the public know the difference between headline grabbing rhetoric and action, as well as the difference between right and wrong. He cannot and must not take his poll position for granted. If the people of this country want to see fresh new faces in parliament, they may decide to vote for candidates from smaller parties, or independents.

For the record, I would like to say that I wholeheartedly endorse his suggestion that Conservative MP’s will only be required to follow the Whips orders on Manifesto commitments, other party’s should take note.

Warning: file_get_contents( failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found in /home/hughes/49MHP6KJ/htdocs/power/wp-content/plugins/wikiovote.php on line 40

25 Comments For This Post

  1. fhghfh Says:

    Wholeheartedly endorsing anything offered by a mainstream party is stupid. We know they lie, so why bow down to them?

    Watch nothing change under the next government. Company bosses will continue to exploit their virtual immunity, whether it be abroad or right here at home. Advertising will keep lying, while mentioning that fact might get you a libel case. We will still have no population policies. Personal debt will continue skyrocketing. Etc. Etc.

    Cameron WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. If you vote Conservative or Labour or Lib-Dem then you are just as morally corrupt as the politicians.

    I’m voting for the people that I see doing the most in my local community. I don’t mean the ones that are constantly out and about doing radio shows or opening shopping centres…I mean the politicians that are involved in real projects in my community. I know they aren’t corrupt because I can see them working. Not glamour but real work, helping to clear ditches, or ferry pensioners to the community centre. The main parties have their people all suited up in their constituency office…to me that says they’re corrupt and hiding from real people. They talk about wanting to help and serve the public, but I won’t believe it unless I see it with my own eyes.

    The Conservatives are talking about smaller government, less people involved, less representative. It’s already corrupt enough, making it an even more exclusive club won’t help. If anything we need a bigger government, involving more normal people in the process.

    The Conservative Party is corrupt, and has been for decades. A vote for them is a vote for the same again. I fully expect that’s what we’ll get, just more of the same. And ten years down the line the newspapers will decide it’s time for a new government and this whole panto will start up again.

  2. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghfh: I am not convinced that it is as bad as you suggest. However, for the time being, free speech is permitted in this country, so everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I will not attempt to convince you either way.

  3. CJ Says:

    Well, apart from the fact that anything is better than nothing – which is precisely what Labour does about almost everything the majority of upright cictizens want – you may well be right, but about the Kirkbride thing except that you can’t assume that just because two people are married that they talk to each other – few couples actually do af ter the first year or so.

    @fhghfh: Why do you say Cameron is corrupt? You don’t even know the man! Politicians who waste their time ferrying pensioners around are the corrupt ones in my opinion because they’re often only doing it to curry favour with the voters and anyway, they’re far too expensive to be doing that! If the pensioners were paid at even half the rate they expected and it was implied fifty years ago that they could expect, then they could easily afford taxis for that and they would have no need of a tatty day centre in the first place because they’d have enough money to have a life! Get real! We don’t want do-gooders in the UK, we have FAR, FAR too many of them! What we need is the lifestyle we ******* well pay for and have done for years and years!!!!

  4. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ CJ: I remain to be convinced about Kirkbride, £20k plus per year is difficult to miss and, they (Kirkbride and Mackay) seem very close, holding hands etc., when in front of the TV cameras, so unless this is a cynical attempt to appear ‘together‘, I strongly suspect she knew what was going on. If not, then perhaps she should come out and say as much, that would stop the speculation.

  5. fhghfh Says:

    @CJ – lol, true about the pensioners, I was being facetious, and somewhat vacuous I suppose…but still, I want to vote for people that I know are involved in normal life, and when they say they want to do something about a certain issue I want to see their personal involvement in that. I want to know that they’re prepared to work all week and then spend some time at the weekend helping to do something in their community. If they seem pious for doing it then so be it, if they keep on doing it after the cameras have gone then people in their area will know they’re for real. The problem is that so many people consider that they have no personal responsibility for improving their community, so they let politicians off the hook too.

    I say Cameron is corrupt because he is. Just the general kind of corruption that’s the result of so many career politicians, which in turn is the result of our outdated system. Cameron won’t do anything about a whole range of issues that clearly need to be sorted out…simple case in point, and something that bugged me earlier today, nuisance phonecalls from companies that I have no relationship with. I’m tired of being told that I should go ex-directory or sign up on some special list or whatever it is you have to do nowadays – just ban the practice! It only exists because of vested interests, and that, along with a hundred other issues, is why Cameron is corrupt. He doesn’t want to put his hand in the fire because he knows it’ll get burnt. Fair enough, sensible you might say, but I think somebody needs to be brave, too many things need sorting out for us to have politicians who are prepared to just let it all go on the way it is.

    Maybe you’re right, but I doubt it. My accusation of decades of corruption is soft, the party has been corrupt for much longer, and the other bunch too.

    I would love to see Green Party and UKIP members having – at the very least – a greater role in shaping policy, but that isn’t going to happen until we change the way we vote. All I hear from the Conservatives on this, is that they want to be able to ‘adopt’ potential independents – the cheekiness really knows no bounds! And you wonder why I call them corrupt? 🙂 Because they are. It’s not exactly a revelation, those with power will always corrupt their own morality to hang onto power, unless there’s a system in place to prevent that.

  6. fhghfh Says:

    I should probably retract my reference to ‘the other bunch’, their corruption isn’t on the same level at all.

    It’s worth remembering that the Conservatives used a bloody writ of ascension in 92, and Cameron was a major player back then. I see no change either, with most of his people being from one exclusive school it’s clear that he has very little interest in or respect for the ‘ordinary’ people that he covets.

  7. Charlie Says:

    I admit that I was momentarily impressed by Cameron’s opened up the candidate process and saying that anyone could stand, but then I realised that that is precisely what we should have anyway!

    Sure, anyone can stand at present as an independent but without party backing they’ll need to be well off and even if they do get elected, without a party it is meaningless.

    fhghfh raises some good points, at the end of the day no matter who we vote for, eventually they become greedy and corrupt. Take Julie Kirkbride, once a reporter for the Telegraph, no doubt reporting on the dodgy MPs once herself; a few years in Parliament and she becomes one.

  8. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ Charlie: You are correct, we should always have been able to select the candidate we wanted to support our favoured party, anything else, if it hadn’t become the ‘norm’, would be considered ridiculous! I also appreciate that it may be difficult for independent’s, however, if they had some sort of unbrella organisation, for example, the Libertarians, then I am sure it is possible. Failing which, they may end up having to campaign on ‘local issues’, no bad thing, but these types of issues are often ‘one off’s’, hospital closures etc.

    I also accept that power can corrupt, but is certainly doesn’t have to. Those that are easily corrupted are often weak (or arrogant) in the first place. Something to watch for!

  9. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghfh: I think it is the system that is corrupt, not necessarily one particular party, lets face it, many MP’s have had their hand in the till. Cameron is an opportunist, or some would argue, a populist, he does seem to lack original ideas, instead he takes existing ones and rebrands them. Maybe that is misleading, but it isn’t corrupt. I do believe that the Executive will only be kept in check if there is less use of the Whips and/or there are more independents in parliament. You only have to look at the past 25 years to see what happens when a party gets too much power, they end up becoming authoritarian. The past 12 years is a good example of how that much power can corrupt. We have had our economy shattered, our right to freedom and liberty decimated and our safety put at risk as a consequence of a war few in this country wanted.

    You are right to be angry, but, whilst I think Cameron is weak, lacking in conviction and a bit of an opportunist, he has not been given the opportunity to do anything….he is watching from the sidelines. My biggest worry is, from what I have seen and heard, Cameron is just offering more of the same, the people of this country demand and deserve better from their leaders. The best thing that could happen is if the decision on who to represent us was left to the people rather than the constituency parties.

  10. fhghfh Says:

    I’m less concerned about the hands in the till than I am the more subtle corruption that has meant Cameron’s family have been in power for some two hundred years. That’s real corruption, and something that I’d pretty much forgotten until I decided to read up on Cameron after CJ’s earlier comments.

    The current Labour Party is obviously corrupt, but let’s at least give them some credit. They’ve made a couple of changes that deserve recognition. Freedom of info, although they tried to block requests, the requests could only be made because of their legislation. In 2007 David Maclean (Conservative) tried to introduce a bill to exempt MPs and Peers, the bill never found a sponsor in the Lords so it fell by the wayside, which leads us on to the other good thing Labour did – they began making changes to the Lords. Top marks for the effort, now maybe in the future we can go the whole hog and sort out the monarchy – but not with a Conservative government that’s for sure. And certainly not one run by Cameron.

    I don’t know, the more I think about it the further I get from the Conservatives.

    No fear, Labour won’t be taking my vote, but there’s no doubt that even with the recent events Labour still represent ‘The People’ better than Cameron’s Conservatives. In fact I felt more comfortable with Hague or Duncan Smith than Cameron. At least those guys had some kind of normality.

    The more I write, and the more I read about Cameron, the further I get from the Conservatives. We need people that understand life devoid of silver spoons, Cameron is too much of an aristocrat to lead us in the 21st century. I can hardly believe I’m saying this, but I trust Brown more than Cameron…by quite a margin.

  11. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghfh: New Labour introduced the Freedom of Information Act in the belief that it would demonstrate transparency, whilst offering little opportunity for embarrassment to the incumbent government. Like most of their legislation, it was poorly drafted and, on reflection, they could see that there were substantial risks to New Labour and all MP’s. That is why they scurried around to change things. It was, like most of their initiatives, supposed to provide good headlines, whilst delivering little. They got that bit wrong.

    True, they have done some work on the promised House of Lords reforms, but they haven’t finished the job, they have also used it as a conduit to have unelected Ministers such as Mandelson put in charge of key Ministries’. But what else of New Labour’s legacy? They have created a predominantly ‘benefit dependent’ state, where more that half the population receives some form of taxpayer funded state benefit. This implies that they are taking too much tax in the first place. They have added over 3,000 new criminal laws, to the extent that none of us can claim anymore, to know whether something is legal or not. They have provided the Police with massive and yes, draconian powers over the very people they are supposed to serve and protect.

    New Labour has decimated our hard fought for and, long held right to liberty and freedom from state interference as they monitor our vehicle movements, emails, telephone calls, travel movements, internet activity, text messages. The database state has gone mad with massive amounts of our personal data now in the hands of government and bureaucrats. Anyone that believes this is not a risk to liberty and freedom, needs to have a much closer look. Finally, through their arrogance and inability or unwillingness to listen to others, they have destroyed our economy. Presiding over a debt fueled boom and claiming that is was nothing of the sort.

    I know little about Cameron, having only been able to take him at face value, but I do think he lacks conviction and is weak. I don’t think he is the answer to our problems but one thing sure as hell is certain, New Labour have all but destroyed the fabric of this country in terms of our values, moral rectitude, economic future, right to privacy, liberties, willingness to accept risk and our security. I would remind everyone, that even though New Labour introduced 3600 new laws in 12 years and promised us that this loss of liberty, would be worth it, because of the increased security against terrorism and crime; we have seen violent crime double, we have seen no reduction in the terrorist threat and we have allowed Big Brother in by stealth.

    The New Labour ‘experiment’ has turned millions of the people in this country to quivering, fearful, state dependent wasters, that believe in the nanny state and that the world, or more accurately, the working majority, owe them a living. That is no legacy. As you can see, I am no fan of New Labour, the only difference is, I never trusted them from the start…way too smooth for my liking and in a way, and Cameron comes across in the same genre.

  12. StandyBy Says:

    Bravo! Well said, no act of contrition will be accepted by the public, where they have broken the laws, or the spirit of the law, then they can and must be punished. As one commentator stated earlier, even if it is to remove the stigma that other reasonable MPs are having to accept. But it cannot stop at the back benchers, the leaders, ministers and shadow ministers must face the same questions and rules.

  13. Free the British Says:

    I will never vote Labour and I am unconvinced about David Cameron. If there is a Libertarian candidate on the ticket at the next election, they will get my vote. I want to see less central control of systems, procedures and the people. We need to be in charge of our own lives, we can’t accept more and more government control. I want an Asda style roll back of all the draconian legislation that has been brought in by the Labour party and I want to see less reliance on the state for benefits. We need to stand on our own two feet, something the British have been known for. Above all, we need to see less government waste, reduce taxes and let the public stimulate the economy and reduce personal debt by spending more of their own money.

  14. fhghfh Says:

    re: benefits – My mum gets state benefits. She also volunteers for a local community organisation for a total of about 20 hours per week. I don’t want to see her lose her benefits because of a backlash. She deserves support from the state and I believe that she contributes FAR more than her benefit compensates for. I don’t want her to have to fill in more forms, there are already more than enough, and she’s had to go to Citizens Advice various times because the benefit system is so complicated for her. If anything I want to see rules relaxed for her, but I can’t imagine a system that relaxes her rules and makes rules more strict for others, I just can’t see how that would work. It’s easy to forget that there are a lot of people on benefits that are actually providing unique services to the public, I know that without my mum and her friend (also on benefits) the organisation they work for couldn’t exist, which in turn would mean there were a lot more kids on the street and consequently a lot more low-level crime, vandalism etc, in my town. Under no circumstances do I want to risk that, so my first priority is retaining her benefits rather than punishing people I don’t know.

    Also, there are the thousands of disabled people who are already a financial burden on their family and friends so cutting state benefit would only increase that burden. I don’t believe that the responsibility for that should fall on the family and friends, because we’ve seen the result of that in the past. Not to mention the effect of that drain on the economy.

    Cutting benefits would force friends and relatives of claimants to use their expendable cash looking after someone who used to claim benefits. There would be large numbers of legitimate claimants whose families are forced to suffer, while the estates full of people that are currently benefit-dependent will largely turn to crime rather than employment. So then we have to build more prisons etc – that’s taking even more money out of the public purse than benefits currently do. We can try to limit costs by making prisoners work, but that doesn’t come close to covering the massive infrastructure costs that are involved in a large prison system – as proved by so many systems around the world, past and present.

    It’s a mess, I don’t have an answer. But to get back to the main subject – DON’T VOTE LABOUR, DON’T VOTE CONSERVATIVE. Labour don’t look after the people in this country who labour daily, while the Conservatives are not conservative. Both parties are utterly corrupt, from the financial corruption of individual members to the philosophical corruption of the party as a whole.

    @ Frustrated Voter – We’ve never had freedom from state interference. Don’t paint a picture of a free world in the past because it didn’t exist. If you look back over the history of the police in this country there have been plenty of occasions when they’ve used legislation to abuse the freedom and liberty of the public to maintain state control. The current government have made a pig’s ear of almost everything they’ve done, but there never was a golden age of public freedom.

  15. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghfh: I haven’t suggested that there was a golden age, instead I have commented on how we are experiencing an increase in the number of laws by which we are governed, most of which infringe our liberties, freedom and right to privacy. In fact, as I have made clear, there have been 3607 new laws introduced in 12 years, that is fairly compelling evidence of a paradigm shift in power from individual to state. Moreover, I am fully aware that the police have long abused their powers, but the fact that they are getting more powers to abuse is worthy of comment and concern.

  16. fhghfh Says:

    “long held right to liberty and freedom”

    I don’t believe we’ve ever had a right to liberty and freedom. We have no constitution to provide that so how has it ever been our right? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is as close as we come, lol.

    What I’m saying though, is that there has been an increase in new laws since the mid-80’s, and that’s just continued ever since. The increase from Major to Blair is much less than the increase from Thatcher to Major. That’s not to say that Labour haven’t continued the trend, but laying the blame squarely at their door is misunderstanding the situation.

  17. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghgh: I don’t want to get into a bun fight on this issue, but I remain firm on the accuracy of my description that we have a “long held right to liberty and freedom”. The fact that these “rights” have been built on convention rather than a constitution makes them no less valid.

    I would not count myself as qualified to give anything other than an opinion on this subject, but there are many out there who can and have done so, but simply to reinforce my point. The Magna Carta stated that ‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land’. In spite of this, we now have detention without charge, not in a state of emergency such as a war, but as an everyday event.

    In 1948, The United Kingdom agreed to the United Nations Universal ‘Declaration of Human Rights’ the first 7 articles stated that;

    Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

    Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

    Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

    Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.’

    This did not become law in this country, but was adhered to by convention. However, it is worth noting that it was in the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights, that Members of the Council of Europe signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1950; this is now commonly referred to as the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact, The Human Rights Act 1998 now incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Therefore I would argue that whilst we do not have a written constitution we have enjoyed a right to liberty and freedom through convention.

    I do not contest your point on the introduction of new legislation other than to highlight the fact that under New Labour, more laws have been introduced in their 12 years than in all previous parliaments combined. That is a continuation I grant you, but it is also a paradigm shift.

  18. fhghgh Says:

    @ Frustrated Voter

    re: magna carta
    Well, the Magna Carta had various clauses that distinguished the privileged from the rest of society. I don’t think it was designed to ensure liberty for all, in fact I think if I remember correctly it was designed by very rich people to give them protection from the king, then over many years it was gradually changed to represent a more rounded set of principles. Remember that most people were peasants at that time, not ‘free men’, so the reference to ‘No free man’ at the beginning of that quoted section is largely irrelevant.

    The Declaration of Human Rights, on the other hand, is a more considered and complete document. But until recently it gave us no power at all. As you said, it wasn’t law, which basically meant that when the chips were down, it didn’t have to be respected. I suppose that changed slightly in ’98, but the government still doesn’t have to abide by it.

    re: new laws
    More than all previous parliaments combined?

    Thatcher 11yr total 19,827, Major 7yr total 15,212, Blair 10yr total 26,849.

    Blair didn’t even make as many as the two previous parliaments, let alone all previous parliaments.

    But surely the most accurate way to look at it is per year – Thatcher 1724, Major 2402, Blair 2663. That gives a clearer picture of the change.

    EU legislation makes a big difference though. 2,100 European Regulations in 2006, none of which goes through UK Parliament.

    I suppose it’s also worth mentioning the size of some of these statutes – ie Companies Act 2006, the longest Act in British Parliamentary history.

    I’m not denying that Labour are crap, I’ve said numerous times DO NOT VOTE LABOUR. But I’m trying to get you to stop sitting on the fence regarding the Conservatives.

    There is no benefit to voting for one of the two major parties, unless of course you are satisfied with the general direction of our society. Might as well throw the Lib Dems in the mix too. All three of those parties want to take us into more government and corporate power, and consequently less freedom for the individual. As I see it the Greens want to reduce corporate power, and UKIP want to reduce government and euro power. A vote for either of those two is beneficial to our political system…imo…

  19. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghfh: My apologies, I was of course referring to new criminal laws, rather than the broader issue of legislation. Therefore, to clarify, this Labour government has introduced 45 criminal justice bills which have resulted in a further 3,607 new criminal offences. By contrast, based on a trawl through the statute books, the civil liberties campaign group, Liberty, has estimated that a total of 494 offences were created under the Conservative government between 1988 and 1996. However, most ‘experts’ urge caution on the statistics provided in relation to new laws given, there is no single source to garner these types of figures. Hence the reason Liberty had to complete a manual trawl.

    I remain firmly committed to the view that we have all benefited from freedom and liberty as a consequence of convention and that these are being slowly eroded by statute under this government. Human Rights Act aside. I hadn’t expected to get into a long debate on this particular aspect of my posting; it was just a broad based, but personal perspective.

    I have already voted and none of the 3 main parties received my vote. Hope that puts your mind at ease, although, I must bow consider my position in relation to the general election. If there is a Libertarian candidate, I will probably vote for them. Cameron does not convince me that he will be any different from Brown. Smoother is not better. The LibDems are good on individual liberty issues, but lack much depth, although I do have a great deal of time for Vince Cable. That notwithstanding, they have not done enough to convince me either. All I want is less, not more state interference in my life; it is not much to ask for in a so called free society. I also, for the record, quite like the LibDems idea of pulling people out of the tax bracket by raising the threshold to £12,000. This would help workers on low wages, part-time workers, pensioners and volunteers. Above all, it would avoid the necessity of millions of people having to unnecessarily go through the mill in terms of claiming state benefits.

  20. fhghfh Says:

    @ Frustrated Voter – You’re right, there has been a massive increase in criminal laws, and with no effect on crime. Labour’s promise of being tough on crime was as absurd as a ‘war on drugs’ or any similar efforts. To reduce crime you need straightforward laws, less concentrations of poor people, and more opportunity for personal improvement, simple. Adding laws has become a means of courting the media I think, and with celebrity politicians it’s a recipe for disaster.

    Successive governments have claimed they’ll ‘crack down’ on various sections of the population for the benefit of the rest of us, and all they’ve actually done is make things stricter for the majority, which also – funnily enough – benefits those with capital to invest rather than the vast majority who make a living from daily toil.

    I agree that we’ve progressed via convention over thousands of years, but I don’t agree that our loss of liberty is solely the fault of this government. I think the current trend began in the early 1970’s, accelerated and became noticeable in the 80’s, went wild in the 90’s, then Blair took it to another level into the new century. No question Labour have been a nightmare, the fact that the British public have become the world’s cctv guinea pigs is enough to make it clear, but the Conservatives are just as bad, they would have done most of the bad things Labour have done and wouldn’t have touched the Lord’s…so don’t ease up on Cameron. Sorry if I’ve seemed overly tenacious on this point, but the Conservatives don’t deserve a chance and I kind of got the impression that you were wavering in your opinion. Good to hear you used your vote btw. 🙂

  21. fhghfh Says:

    That Lib Dem idea is interesting, and yeah Vince Cable is ok…I’ve just always thought of the Lib Dems as being a bit lightweight, lacking conviction. Maybe it’s a false impression. I’ve never really given them much time to be perfectly honest.

  22. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghfh: I agree, the Labour government carried on with the attack on individual liberties, so they are not completely to blame. That said, they have introduced laws which are noticeable. It is all very well to ban secondary picketing because the average Jo, will not notice it. But, detention without charge, a ban (without permission) on peaceful protest within a 1 mile radius of Parliament Square, a massive extension of ‘on the spot’ fines which makes the police officer or official both judge and jury….just don’t get me started on this!

    For the record, I would never waste my vote, if I am honest I wanted Cameron to convince me that he had what it takes, but he has patently failed. The bottom line is, we can only vote for the party that least offends us, rather than the one that we agree with. What a horrible state of affairs. I have to say, that the only reason the Conservatives and LibDems want a quick election is because they know that Labour is in turmoil and they do not want to give independent candidates or movements such as the Libertarians time to offer a viable alternative.

  23. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghfh: I am completely behind you on the LibDems, always felt they were for those people that couldn’t make their mind up, but, for the moment at least, I am keeping an open mind. Not least because, finally, they have worked out that they are supposed to be a party that stands for individual liberty 🙂

  24. fhghfh Says:

    “we can only vote for the party that least offends us”

    So sad and so true. A horrible state of affairs indeed. The other two parties are certainly being opportunistic. In a way I don’t blame them, I suppose it’s the nature of the beast – but I don’t admire them either. So depressing. I guess it’s worth bearing in my mind that the current mess will (hopefully) give us a chance at some reform of our electoral system, so maybe I should feel more positive.

    Btw, I don’t know why I mentioned UKIP earlier, their behaviour in the Euro Parliament is exactly the same corruption that currently blights our parliament, so I don’t want to affiliate myself with them. First name that sprang to mind I suppose. I should have said Jury Team, or UKF, or No2EU, or one of the other 267 anti-eu parties that sprang up last week, lol. Talk about splitting the vote!

  25. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ fhghfh: You are spot on with UKIP. The Jury Team is an interesting concept, pity they didn’t have a little more publicity before they started selecting the candidates, that way people could have had the chance to vote before they closed the selection. The outcome of the EU elections is going to be VERY interesting, because I think we will see a massive split in the vote. That said, and this is a shame, people invariably vote for a name they have heard of before and that could see a large proportion of the protest vote going to UKIP, even though, as you make clear, half of them were as corrupt as out homegrown MP’s!

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here