Benefit Changes and Local Elections

Boots888

I'm posting on here but move it to another forum should anyone want to.

Just watching the results of the local elections in the UK. Obviously Con/Dems have taken a right hammering, and rightly so. But I'm saddened the number of people who actually bothered to vote was very low.

Considering the assault on the sick and disabled and changes to the benefits system I'm really disappointed that more people didn't have their say, given the chance.

It seems there is no fight in anyone anymore. Numerous blogs and posts about the unfairness of the new systems coming into play and cuts to the poorest and most vulneralbe but nearly 70% couldn't be bothered to go out and vote.

Shocking!!:eek:

mynameistallulah

The local elections have little (no) effect on the benefit changes ...

Anubis_2

mynameistallulah wrote: »

The local elections have little (no) effect on the benefit changes ...

Short term...but long term the seats have to be won back in a main election, so every seat taken now is important if people want change.

Having said that, I can't see reforms and cuts across the board being any different no matter who is in.

Boots888

I know that but as a matter of protest, surely more people could've at least gone to the polls.

It will all come out in the wash over the next few days when the Con/Libs have to ask themselves why such an appalling result in these elections - that's when the public will be heard and have a chance to voice themselves.

If more people got off their lazy backsides and bothered to vote at all then the backlash to come would be greater.

zagfles

The result really isn't that bad for them in mid term, particularly with all the cuts and austerity measures, and particularly as there's one real opposition party to vote for in England, unlike the usual 2. As I just posted on another board:

Labour are about 9 points ahead at the moment. If you look at mid term when they were previously in opposition, they were regularly well over 20, sometimes over 30 points ahead!!

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/histori...tion-1992-1997

Current lead is about what they had mid term 1989-1990, when they went on to lose the next general election.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/histori...tion-1987-1992

Boots888

zagfles wrote: »

The result really isn't that bad for them in mid term, particularly with all the cuts and austerity measures, and particularly as there's one real opposition party to vote for in England, unlike the usual 2. As I just posted on another board:

Labour are about 9 points ahead at the moment. If you look at mid term when they were previously in opposition, they were regularly well over 20, sometimes over 30 points ahead!!

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/histori...tion-1992-1997

Current lead is about what they had mid term 1989-1990, when they went on to lose the next general election.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/histori...tion-1987-1992

But that was a very long time ago so wouldn't count on those results - at least I hope people wouldn't vote with 1990 in mind.

We need voters with foresight, not hindsight and it never happens. It just goes round and round in circles, hoping the next generation will involve themselves in "current" affairs and vote.

zagfles

Boots888 wrote: »

But that was a very long time ago so wouldn't count on those results - at least I hope people wouldn't vote with 1990 in mind.

We need voters with foresight, not hindsight and it never happens. It just goes round and round in circles, hoping the next generation will involve themselves in "current" affairs and vote.

The point wasn't "remembeing 1990"! The point was that governments usually get bad results mid-term. It's expected.

Oppositions need to have much bigger leads mid-term if they want any hope of the winning the election, as history proves. The Tories had leads of 20+ points in 2008 but failed to win the last election outright. A 9 point lead for Labour really isn't a good result mid-term.

Boots888

Anyway I'd have hoped and expected more people to engage in politics in the UK as its clear more people than ever are unhappier with their lot. Talk about divide and rule, people are argueing with eachother left, right and centre even when they fundamentally agree with one another.

Now you have the Public sector workers on strike, the sick and disabaled fighting the system and marching in wheelchairs in London, students and young people going nuts on the streets, unemployed fighting for jobs!!!

If only England had anywhere near the amount of street protests on May day as in Paris, Madrid, Rome etc then we could have had our own spring uprising. But no, only a dozen people sat in the rain in Trafalgar Square - there is no solidarity in the UK and without that the country is screwed.

It's assumed most people are doing alright, thanks, Jack!

Mrs_Arcanum

As my brother posted on FB

Political commentators do talk a load of rubbish at election time. The tragedy is that local elections are so politicised that "party" has become more important than "candidate". I suspect we could substitute party name for candidate name on the ballot papers, it would make no difference to the results. These are not local elections anymore. Political commentators should accept much of the responsibility for this sad change.

This is why the turnout is so poor, along with people commuting out of the area they live in & not really having a local connection any more.

Boots888

zagfles wrote: »

The point wasn't "remembeing 1990"! The point was that governments usually get bad results mid-term. It's expected.

Oppositions need to have much bigger leads mid-term if they want any hope of the winning the election, as history proves. The Tories had leads of 20+ points in 2008 but failed to win the last election outright. A 9 point lead for Labour really isn't a good result mid-term.

But the General Election isn't until 2015!!!!

Thats another 2 and a half years away, thats the point. People need to engage now and not be so indifferent to politics TODAY, at the polls. Mid term means nothing.

Anyway, I just mentioned it. I'm no longer that active nor do I care about it. I was a radical, active campaigner 10 years ago against the Irag War. Fat lot of good all those blisters got me marching.

Now I'm just like those I'm complaining about - dead from the neck up from it all.

Whatsmore, I live in another country going through an election right now and I couldn't care less what the country decides - they are not my peers.

Itismehonest

Boots888 wrote: »

Anyway I'd have hoped and expected more people to engage in politics in the UK as its clear more people than ever are unhappier with their lot. Talk about divide and rule, people are argueing with eachother left, right and centre even when they fundamentally agree with one another.

Now you have the Public sector workers on strike, the sick and disabaled fighting the system and marching in wheelchairs in London, students and young people going nuts on the streets, unemployed fighting for jobs!!!

If only England had anywhere near the amount of street protests on May day as in Paris, Madrid, Rome etc then we could have had our own spring uprising. But no, only a dozen people sat in the rain in Trafalgar Square - there is no solidarity in the UK and without that the country is screwed.

It's assumed most people are doing alright, thanks, Jack!

Not sure what any of that has to do with choosing your local Councillors. They have absolutely no control over any of those things & so anyone who voted for those reasons really didn't vote for anything at all - they just had a whinge about the Government.

If Local Elections were run on local matters then more people might vote & more might actually get done locally. While the Local Elections are just sounding boards for the disgruntled then the population deserves what it gets - normally Local Councils blaming Central Government & vice versa & no improvements for the electorate at all.