Ulysses wrote:When I say digime2007 that people cannot be bothered I think that's a fair assessment. It's not entriely that they cannot be bothered to physically walk to the polling station more they cannot be bothered to vote as they see no net benefit in the short or long term. Different interpretations but the same sorry state of affairs.
I agree. That's what I was saying. People have disengaged because they have been consistently let down and don't see ideological difference between the different parties. That's not apathy that's a voting decision.
Ulysses wrote:As for the war on Iraq leenewham [and Blair's current reticence even with the Chilcot enquiry to apologise for lying] this is something that angers me.
Agree again. Another reason why Brown wouldn't have been my choice to take over from Blair. He was too entangled with that whole debacle.
Also, have to agree with leenewham about the papers (don't get me started on The Sun) and even more so that forums like these aren't the best place to talk politics.
So ... we’re all agreed that we should blow the Sydenham development budget on a massive mosaic of Gordon Brown?
You're right digime2007. It might be something better ruminated upon (see what I did there?) over a ruby murray, as Lee suggests.
My last word on the subject, though. is what you have described is voter apathy. You call it a voting decision others, including myself, call it voter apathy. It's the same thing.
Just so there's no confusion here's the dictionary definition of apathy:
1. absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2. lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.
3. Also, ap⋅a⋅thei⋅a, ap⋅a⋅thi⋅a [ap-uh-thee-uh] Show IPA . Stoicism. freedom from emotion of any kind.
[BTW I don't mean to infer you are confused just that we are talking about the same thing, just using differing explanations]
I am saddened that anyone would choose not to exercise their right to vote but can empathise.
Is no one going to suggest an evening for this curry? How about Jan 29th or 30th? Or would Ulysses be mourning the martyrdom of Charles I on the latter day?
You can’t view the next election as the basis of comparison as the boundaries have changed. There is an estimate of how the people now in the constituency voted at the last election: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi- ... nd%20Penge
The estimates are:
Labour: 18,491 44.7%
Lib Dems: 11,528 27.9%
Conservative: 9,143 22.1%
Others: 2,226 5.4%
Majority of 6,963
You have to consider that these are based upon voting in local elections so it is not exactly matching the last general election but it is an indicator of how the boundary has moved to take in more people from a Conservative/Liberal marginal.
Psi wrote:You can’t view the next election as the basis of comparison as the boundaries have changed. There is an estimate of how the people now in the constituency voted at the last election: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi- ... nd%20Penge
I'm wondering how many people will stay away in protest at the boundary changes. To me, it seems like a potential administrative nightmare to have them crossing so many Boroughs as they do. I feel I have even less in common with the voters of Lewisham than I ever did with the voters of Beckenham. As far as I can see, I think I shall still be in a Beckenham ward for the local elections, and a Lewisham one for the general, or have the local ones changed again too?
Psi wrote:You can’t view the next election as the basis of comparison as the boundaries have changed. There is an estimate of how the people now in the constituency voted at the last election: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi- ... nd%20Penge
I'm wondering how many people will stay away in protest at the boundary changes. To me, it seems like a potential administrative nightmare to have them crossing so many Boroughs as they do. I feel I have even less in common with the voters of Lewisham than I ever did with the voters of Beckenham. As far as I can see, I think I shall still be in a Beckenham ward for the local elections, and a Lewisham one for the general, or have the local ones changed again too?
I think Local boundries are unchanged, council boundrys tend to get moved independently of Parlimentary Constituencies. It tends to give MPs the confidence to fiddle with councils while feeling safe that they won't be taking their majority out from under themselves.
"Has spoken in 4 debates in the last year — well below average amongst MPs.
Has received answers to 9 written questions in the last year — below average amongst MPs."
Eagle wrote:
How often has he disagreed with party policy?
Also:
Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament
Voted strongly for introducing ID cards
Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war
Sounds like vary rarely.
Apparently a vote for JD is directly a vote for Gordon Brown.
Also noted voted strongly for hunting ban. Surely vote should have been left to rural MPs.. I would have thought representing the people of West Lewisham he would have found more important things to get worked up about.
Seems to be a very good backer of HMG whatever the Policy.
Not sure why he wants to carry on after , what is it 5 parliaments , or maybe 6. john Maples only a distant memory now.
Eagle wrote:
How often has he disagreed with party policy?
Also:
Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament
Voted strongly for introducing ID cards
Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war
Sounds like vary rarely.
Apparently a vote for JD is directly a vote for Gordon Brown.
And also just because the man's a dolt.
I cannot understand how he's existed as MP in this constituency longer than I have plain existed tbqh...
If he was involved with one of the alleged coups then shows how incompetent he is.( possibly )
Any Latin American General would have done a better job.
If they were serious coups then God Save Us.
What I find frightening, is the way the media seem to be deciding who becomes the next PM.
Look at any picture of Gordon Brown which appears in the press - particularly those publications to the right (about 95% of them) - and they will ALWAYS print a picture of him looking in some way distressed, whilst those of Cameron always show him looking smoooooth. It's the constant bombardment of such images which ultimately have a subconscious effect on the electorate.
We do have a strange political system though.
I mean, if you look at the UK as being UK PLC, and the Government as the Board of Directors - how many other companies would change their whole Board every 5 or so years, and then take a company in a different direction?
