Local Elections - failure for all parties..

wymondham

With only a third of people eligable to vote actually doing it, what does this say about the parties?

Certainly from my point of view they are are all so similar, not just in their politics, but their almost uniformprivileged background and hence their disconnected attitudes. Do these people really represent us - evidence suggests the majority of us think not!

Before anyone says it, I know it was a LOCAL election about electing local people, but I, like most I suspect don't even know who the local fella/las is, just the one in the nice shiney new suit and insincere grin on the TV - not the most inspiring image to get you to vote!

kabayiri

I got a flyer through my door from the lib dem candidate, but it was made out to look like a hand-written letter.

For me, that's another hallmark of glib style over substance politics which sees voters as 'electoral fodder'.

Blame the spin-meisters. They have been alienating the public for years.

movilogo

I am worried about Britain's future because

[1] Most people are not bothering with their say
[2] They still don't understand Con Lib Lab are all the same and we need something alternative.

chucky

wymondham wrote: »

With only a third of people eligable to vote actually doing it, what does this say about the parties

It's telling us people aren't happy with the political spectrum otherwise more people would vote.

Labour don't have the right group of people to make a government.
Tories haven't won a General Election since 1992 - Cameron hasn't taken them any closer to doing so in 7 years. How can they not have a got a majority or even built to get a majority with the state the last Labour government ended up!?!?
As for the Lib Dems, they're a bunch of jokers who should join a circus.

Graham_Devon

I'm surprised by the numbers seemingly using their vote to show the coalition they are not happy, and trying to urge them to change.

As someone stated last night on question time, we just need some truth, quit the lies, the country is sick of it.

Wookster

32% turnout is not good either way you cut it.

movilogo wrote: »

[2] They still don't understand Con Lib Lab are all the same and we need something alternative.

I'd beg to differ with the above.

Labour are about the state providing solutions for everyone, trying to give everything to everyone whether they can pay for it/ afford it or not and dumbing down standards (such as exams) so that everyone is the same. Spend now and pay later.

Conservatives are about making sure that people get what they pay for, at times less than what they pay for. People say the Conservatives are the party of the rich but I think this is more down to the fact that they don't bribe folks in the same way that labour does (welfare state/ EMA etc).

Lib-Dems can't figure out what people pay for in the first place.

chucky

Wookster wrote: »

Conservatives are about making sure that people get what they pay for, at times less than what they pay for. People say the Conservatives are the party of the rich but I think this is more down to the fact that they don't bribe folks in the same way that labour does (welfare state/ EMA etc).

Just to be clear... Who have the current government impacted least?

The lower earners, middle earners or highest earners... The answer is highest earners, it's the lower and middle earners who are struggling the most. How can you even try to say the richer people in society don't benefit from the Conservatives?!?!

Ionkontrol

wymondham wrote: »

With only a third of people eligable to vote actually doing it, what does this say about the parties?

Although American, this sums it up quire nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

macaque_2

wymondham wrote: »

With only a third of people eligable to vote actually doing it, what does this say about the parties?

Certainly from my point of view they are are all so similar, not just in their politics, but their almost uniformprivileged background and hence their disconnected attitudes. Do these people really represent us - evidence suggests the majority of us think not!

Before anyone says it, I know it was a LOCAL election about electing local people, but I, like most I suspect don't even know who the local fella/las is, just the one in the nice shiney new suit and insincere grin on the TV - not the most inspiring image to get you to vote!

This graph illustrates why I agree with the OP.

[IMG]http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Total Spending&year=2001_2015&sname=&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&spending0=362.57_384.93_415.21_451.50_488.31_502.56_543.96_575.68_621.51_660.60_683.43_703.38_722.18_740.31_760.50&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_g_g_g_g[/IMG]

Powerful interest groups (The EU, the media, the Banks, the Unions, the Building Industry etc) have proved much more skilled at getting their own way, than the government is at representing the people.

If you vote for a party on the basis of what they are promising such no house price bubble (Brown) a referendum on the EU (Blair) or a control on immigration (Cameron), you can be sure that a queue of interest groups will set out to unpick government promises. How can a government expect high turnouts at elections if the promises are meaningless?

nicko33

chucky wrote: »

How can you even try to say the richer people in society don't benefit from the Conservatives?!?!

I'd say they lose less with the Conservatives than with Labour.
Is that the same as benefiting?

chucky

nicko33 wrote: »

I'd say they lose less with the Conservatives than with Labour.
Is that the same as benefiting?

Well yes, you're right. The richer people in society are the ones who will lose less under a conservative government.

The lower and middle earners are the ones who feel the most economic pain.