UK posters poll! [Archive]

richardm

19th January 2004, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
I really don't know. I've voted Labour all my life but, well where to start? Let's start with Privacy Internationals award to Blunkett. And the emasculated Freedom of Information Act that falls way short of what the US has had for years. Blair, Blunkett, Straw and others have demonstrated to me that their instincts are profoundly anti-democratic.

Even so, they seem to be the least-worst case out of the available choices.

I mean.. Howard as PM? <shudder>. In fact, any Tory as PM <shudder> - bad enough the last time.

The Lib-Dems seem to have some good ideas, but are worryingly hazy about how they're going to pay for them.

So it'll be Labour for me again, I guess...

Jaggy Bunnet

19th January 2004, 08:03 AM

You seem to have made some mistakes in setting up the poll.

You have listed the SNP and BNP together, when they have nothing in common.

You have listed Labour, Tories, Lib-Dems separately, when they have just about everything in common.

mummymonkey

19th January 2004, 08:16 AM

I vote for the party most likely to defeat the SNP.

Matabiri

19th January 2004, 08:20 AM

I vote for whoever's most likely to reduce the majority of the incumbent, because
a) I hate party politics and feel it tends to make the politicians represent their party in the constituency, rather than their constituency in parliament
b) someone in danger of losing their seat is more likely to actually listen to their constituents

There are many changes I'd like to make to the UK electoral system, but that's probably another thread...

Jon_in_london

19th January 2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
You have listed the SNP and BNP together, when they have nothing in common.

They have a least two words in common!

Jon_in_london

19th January 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri
I vote for whoever's most likely to reduce the majority of the incumbent, because
a) I hate party politics and feel it tends to make the politicians represent their party in the constituency, rather than their constituency in parliament
b) someone in danger of losing their seat is more likely to actually listen to their constituents

There are many changes I'd like to make to the UK electoral system, but that's probably another thread...

I agree, it will be a protest vote for me.

No bloody way in hell Im voting Tory and I just cant bring myself to vote labour, it would make me feel.....dirty...

Lib Dems are unrealistic.

Matabiri

19th January 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

*doesn't vote*

*doesn't think that all other non-UK people will refrain, though*

Did you see the Bremner, Bird and Fortune sketch where that came up?

Group around a table. Chairman asks, "So, how are people going to vote?"
Third person asked answers, "I'm going to withhold my vote, to send a message of protest to the government..." and rambles on for several minutes.
Fourth person answers, "Not going to vote. Can't be bothered."

Any reason why you don't vote?

aerocontrols

19th January 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri
Did you see the Bremner, Bird and Fortune sketch where that came up?

Never even heard of them.

Originally posted by Matabiri
Any reason why you don't vote?

Because this is a poll of UK posters? I should say that I do vote over here in the US...

I was just trying to point out the difficulty Jon will have making certain that his results will even be 'valid' for the UK folks on this board.

Matabiri

19th January 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Because this is a poll of UK posters? I should say that I do vote over here in the US...

Ah. Of course...

Mendor

19th January 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
They have a least two words in common! Yes, but I (rampant raving scot-nat and Lefty) am now going to have to put a tick in a box beside the BNP. Ick.

Also putting my tick next to LibDems ('cos I would vote for them in a constituency where the SNP weren't going to win, just to beat the other two parties) and "Other Misc" to represent these people (http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/) (just to be annoying, really)

Are we talking about Westminster elections here? The next elections I think are the European elections. Let joy be unconfined.

edited to add: On reflection, some people might feel the SSP belong in the "monster raving loony" bracket...

ceptimus

19th January 2004, 09:12 AM

Damn politicians. They can't be trusted. Labour were all in favour of proportional representation (or at least having a referendum on it) before they got elected. Then they forgot about it :rolleyes:

If only we could get a proportional representation system in place, it would prevent these ludicrous block-vote supported dogma-driven meglomaniacs from holding such power. We would probably never get an overall majority again, so politicians would be forced to use a more concensual and pragmatic approach. We would have more stable government, with less ludicrous party-inspired policy reversals. We'd be more like Germany, and other European countries. Most of them have all consistantly improved compared to the UK (in terms of GDP, living standards etc.) over the last 50 years or so.

Mendor

19th January 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
Damn politicians. They can't be trusted. Labour were all in favour of proportional representation (or at least having a referendum on it) before they got elected. Then they forgot about it :rolleyes:Even in places where there is a type of PR, like in Scotland, Labour don't like it (see this outburst (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3154158.stm)). Labour have had to seek coalition government here, and we can't have that, can we?

PR is the only reason the aforementioned socialist party, and the Greens (and the Tories come to that) have had a look in on the Scottish parliament. The person in the article calls the system "undemocratic", while actually it's only through PR that the Scottish parliament has been anything close to representative.

richardm

19th January 2004, 09:31 AM

Proportional representation? Hmm. It sounds good in theory, but I'm yet to be convinced that it'll work in practice. Instead I suspect it'll all end up as a morass of little parties all fighting for whatever they think their constituents want.

In the end it'll either be mob rule or nothing will ever get done.

You may/may not think this is preferable to the current system :D

BillyTK

19th January 2004, 09:32 AM

I'll be voting tactically, against the Tories, which is a pain in the arse because it means I've got to research the last election's results to find out who got in here and by how much. I admit, I have no idea who my MP is, but s/he's got no idea who I am, either.

Did I mention that in local elections, the Tories don't even bother raising a candidate for my ward?

Mendor

19th January 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Proportional representation? Hmm. It sounds good in theory, but I'm yet to be convinced that it'll work in practice.It works here. Well, after a fashion. As I say, Labour had to go into coalition with the LibDems, which led to things such as free personal care for the elderly (yay!), the Executive paying our tuition fees (my tuition fees - double yay!), PR for council elections, etc. The SSP managed to get through a bill abolishing warrant sales. And so on.

Sorry about this. Every thread I touch in P&CE turns into a thread about Scotland. It's the petty nationalist in me. In the end it'll either be mob rule or nothing will ever get done.

You may/may not think this is preferable to the current system :D I don't see any difference from the current system :D

Nikk

19th January 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Mendor

The SSP managed to get through a bill abolishing warrant sales. And so on.

Arrest Warrant? Search? I didn't know that you could you buy these things in Scotland. Or was someone adopting a "pile it high sell it cheap" strategy selling chinese warrants thus pushing those making the local hand crafted version out of business?

charley_bigtime

19th January 2004, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Who would you vote for!?

Does that page three bird count as a Lib-Dem?

Jaggy Bunnet

20th January 2004, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Mendor
It works here. Well, after a fashion. As I say, Labour had to go into coalition with the LibDems, which led to things such as free personal care for the elderly (yay!), the Executive paying our tuition fees (my tuition fees - double yay!), PR for council elections, etc. The SSP managed to get through a bill abolishing warrant sales. And so on.

Sorry about this. Every thread I touch in P&CE turns into a thread about Scotland. It's the petty nationalist in me. I don't see any difference from the current system :D

Works? When you have parties (both the Greens and the SSP) lying about what the electoral system is by describing the list vote (which is used for the top up seats to make the result more closely aligned to votes cast) as a "second preference" or "second choice"? Great system if people don't understand it and parties misrepresent it.

Tuition fees have not been abolished, you pay them after you graduate ("the graduate endowment liability"). If you did have to pay them "upfront" before (and 40% of students didn't have to pay at all) then you could borrow the money from the government and repay it later. So we have gone from a scheme where you repaid a loan after graduation to a scheme where you make a compulsory endowment contribution after graduation. What a marvellous achievement. To call that abolition is nonsense.

Free personal care on the other hand is an achievement that can be credited to PR. Only problem is that it has nothing to do with the coalition government. It was not part of the coalition agreement and was forced through by the Liberals threatening to vote against the government of which they were part.

Shane Costello

20th January 2004, 02:38 AM

I could vote if I moved to the UK, which probabably won't happen anytime before the next election.

BTW how many of you know that Tory is derived form toraigh, an Irish term that described dispossesed Irish landowners in the 17th century who turned to highway robbery as a result of their diminshed circumstances. That the term came to be used to describe the Conservatives indicates widespread public distaste for them isn't a recent phenomenon.

We also use PR in Ireland, albeit in a different form to that used in the UK. We have multiseat constituencies. To cut a long story short this has resulted in massive in-party rivalry in a lot of cases, since the major parties are usually guaranteed one safe seat, but with more than one candidate running intraparty rivalries are excacerbated.

PR also results in a disproportianate amount of indepenants getting elected. From 1997to 2002 the coalition government had to rely on the support of three of these independants, one of whom was elected on the single issue of opposing the abolition of TV deflector systems. To cut another long story short deflector systems deflected UK TV signals, allowing the beneficiaries to view them for free. They felt strongly enough at government attempts to clamp down on this to elect someone to oppose this in the parliament.

Small Town Jesus

20th January 2004, 05:31 AM

I shall no doubt vote as I did at the last election.

I shall vote for the Green candidate unless there is a chance that a Tory could win, in which case I will vote Labour. I would also vote Labour if there was the remotest chance of the Green candidate winning. :D

STJ

Giz

20th January 2004, 05:40 AM

Jeez, what a choice...

The Tories whose only response to the popular center ground being taken is to move towards an unelectable fringe. And they have some old fashioned hang-ups, please guys just move into the 21st century and actually apply some individual responsibilty/liberty rather than reaching into the judeo-xian oldtestament morality grab bag. What's a free market, personal freedom, athiest supposed to make of these guys?

Labour, whose chancellor makes all the right noises in every speech about competitivenous, efficiency, cutting red tape and then - wait for it - does completely the opposite!!! The party that replaced the sleaze of individual tory MPs out to make a quick buck with the self righteous erosion of the constitution! The make jobs for NHS managers, but not doctors, party.

The Lib Dems whose mission seems to be creating policies that make Labour look like committed capitalists who understand the economy. Or who, in an effort to tap the votes of idealists without experience of the real world, propose giving the vote to 16 year olds!!! Personally I think 30 - and no representation without taxation sounds reasonable- (hmmm, mental note - do NOT vote Lib Dems)

Ahhh, 3 billion years of natural selection, the pick of candidates from across an educated population of 60 millions and we have:
Blair
Howard
Kennedy

Tricky

20th January 2004, 05:50 AM

Like Aerocontrols, I won't vote because I'm a Yank, but I am watching the poll with interest. I said some months ago that one of the regime changes that Bush's war might effect could be in England. Let us see if I was prophetic.

ceptimus

20th January 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Like Aerocontrols, I won't vote because I'm a Yank, but I am watching the poll with interest. I said some months ago that one of the regime changes that Bush's war might effect could be in England. Let us see if I was prophetic. Most of my friends despise Blair, because of his support for Bush's war (the majority of the population, and even the majority of MPs were opposed to a war, unless another UN resolution specifically authorizing it was obtained).

Blair himself said he wouldn't go to war without a second UN resolution. Then he went back on his word, and forced his wishes through parliament with arm-twisting measures, and by delaying a vote until our troops were already in harms way, so it would be considered unpatriotic to vote against the war. Even so, a large contingent of his own party's MPs voted against him.

Ther Tories have seemed pretty unelectable right-wing biggots lately. They were in office for one term too long for their own good. I seriously believe they expected to lose the last election that John Major won. Out of office, they have practised infighting and taken anti-european rhetoric to the extreme. They would have given even greater unquestioning support to Bush than Blair did, which is saying something.

The Lib-Dems were anti-war. I tend to support their policies, but I think they would probably make a poor government. The problem with them is that they are undisiplined, and would probably fail to get their own polices through parliament. Even if they did, their polices are expensive, so taxes would have to rise *a lot* I guess they would only last for a single term.

Which is why I would like to see no overall majority. This is called 'a hung parliament' in Britain, and means that two or more parties have to form a coalition. Such coalitions don't ususally last long (we don't have fixed terms here - the Prime Minister can arrange a general election at any time, whenever he thinks he can win).

If proportional representation were introduced (this will likely be the Lib-Dems price if they agree to form a coalition with either other major party) then we may never get another majority single-party government, and I think that would be a good thing.

Interesting Ian

20th January 2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Who would you vote for!?

Im sure this poll is scientificly valid, indicative of public opinion and will have certain political parties quaking in their boots!

Bit of a dilemma here. I hate my local labour MP, but I prefer labour overall. I especially admire Gordon Brown and have done since 1995. He is both extremely intelligent and has helped poor people since becoming chancellor.

So I probably wouldn't vote.

heath

20th January 2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Small Town Jesus
I shall no doubt vote as I did at the last election.

I shall vote for the Green candidate unless there is a chance that a Tory could win, in which case I will vote Labour. I would also vote Labour if there was the remotest chance of the Green candidate winning. :D

STJ

I'm a lifetime labour/independent/green voter and am considering voting tory in the next UK election purely to save this country from the madman that is Tony Blair. He is slimy, insincere and dangerous IMO and has overseen this country's rapid decline in the time I've been here (preempt on the cheap shot: no it hasn't declined because of too many australians :p )

As an australian who's only lived here 5 years I have been constantly amazed by the blatantly self interest, commercialism, cronyism, weazeling and plundering the current "labour" government has got away with. Just how bad were the last tory government that people would rather stay with labour than change to _anything_ else?

Can anyone enlighten me? Or is it a case of died in the wool labour supporters voting for a party name rather than their actions? It's a known fact that most people will _never_ change their party aliegance. Anyone want to own up to that?

Interesting Ian

20th January 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by heath

I'm a lifetime labour/independent/green voter and am considering voting tory in the next UK election purely to save this country from the madman that is Tony Blair. He is slimy, insincere and dangerous IMO and has overseen this country's rapid decline in the time I've been here (preempt on the cheap shot: no it hasn't declined because of too many australians :p )

As an australian who's only lived here 5 years I have been constantly amazed by the blatantly self interest, commercialism, cronyism, weazeling and plundering the current "labour" government has got away with. Just how bad were the last tory government that people would rather stay with labour than change to _anything_ else?

Can anyone enlighten me? Or is it a case of died in the wool labour supporters voting for a party name rather than their actions? It's a known fact that most people will _never_ change their party aliegance. Anyone want to own up to that?

The tories are absolutely awful. I wouldn't vote for them even if someone put a gun to my head. And besides, I just don't subscribe to their philosophy.

heath

20th January 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The tories are absolutely awful. I wouldn't vote for them even if someone put a gun to my head. And besides, I just don't subscribe to their philosophy.

I mean somebody without obvious mental problems.

Jon_in_london

20th January 2004, 07:16 AM

The problem from my point of view is that I just cant trust the tories to not go on another ruin-the-public-services rampage.
This was confirmed to me when the the Tories slammed the latest railways shakeup for being too 'centralist' and introducing 'government interference'. Obviously they are so out of touch with the world of mortals that they dont realise that this is what the rail passengers want, and lots of it too! And who wrecked the trains in the first place?

I feel ill at the thought of voting labour because, apart from the economy under Gordon, the labour party has been a complete and abject miserable failure and has betrayed almost every promise and principle they claimed to have. And like Heath said, The amount of cronyism, corruption and plundering of taxpayers money is so spectacular it makes a Nigerian customs officer look possitively incorruptable.

The Lib Dems seem to live on cloud cukoo land and seem to have no sense of real-politik no economic realities. Grow up Charley, we cant be flower-power children all our lives.

So in short, I will form my own political party, to be announced soon.

The Don

20th January 2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by heath

Can anyone enlighten me? Or is it a case of died in the wool labour supporters voting for a party name rather than their actions? It's a known fact that most people will _never_ change their party aliegance. Anyone want to own up to that?

As a dyed in wool Labour party member (or at least a member for 20 years)

I see very little difference between "New Labour" and the centre ground of the Tory party

- Both are highly authoritarian (Blunkett would have been a good Tory home secretery)
- Both support ransoming the country's future (PPP and PFI are essentially Tory ideas)
- Both are war-mongers
- Both support theocracy
- Labour are superficially supporting public services, you could argue this is the rump of old labour

A someone who is economically slightly left of centre (or about a gajillion miles left of New Labour) and quite libertarian (except when it comes to guns) I'm afraid that I'm gravitating towards the Liberal Democrats. It's jsut that I find it very hard to admit that I was wrong.

BTW, there is no place for socalism these days. Too many people are too comfortably off and those that aren't aer effectively disenfanchised.

mummymonkey

20th January 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by heath
Just how bad were the last tory government that people would rather stay with labour than change to _anything_ else?
Very bad indeed. Very, very, very bad. Bad Tories.

Originally posted by heath
Can anyone enlighten me? Or is it a case of died in the wool labour supporters voting for a party name rather than their actions? It's a known fact that most people will _never_ change their party aliegance. Anyone want to own up to that? I have no problem voting for different parties. In fact in the past I've voted Lab, Liberal & Tory. Anyone to keep the raving commie nationalists out.

Interesting Ian

20th January 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by heath

I mean somebody without obvious mental problems.

What mental problems might these be? Perhaps you think I have mental problems simply because I disagree with people and speak my mind?

Giz

20th January 2004, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by heath

It's a known fact that most people will _never_ change their party aliegance. Anyone want to own up to that?

Labour in 97 and Tory the last time!

Giz

20th January 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The tories are absolutely awful. ... And besides, I just don't subscribe to their philosophy.

Cuz they're into that materialism thing right?

Mendor

20th January 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Works? When you have parties (both the Greens and the SSP) lying about what the electoral system is by describing the list vote (which is used for the top up seats to make the result more closely aligned to votes cast) as a "second preference" or "second choice"? Great system if people don't understand it and parties misrepresent it.There are problems with the Scottish version of PR and it could be improved; the end result, however, is far more representative of the electorate than first-past-the-post.

Also, I hadn't noticed the Greens or the SSP calling the list vote a "second preference". What I *do* remember them saying is "if you don't feel you can give us your constituency vote ('cos we won't win), at least give us your list vote ('cos we might)".Tuition fees have not been abolished, you pay them after you graduate ("the graduate endowment liability"). If you did have to pay them "upfront" before (and 40% of students didn't have to pay at all) then you could borrow the money from the government and repay it later. So we have gone from a scheme where you repaid a loan after graduation to a scheme where you make a compulsory endowment contribution after graduation. What a marvellous achievement. To call that abolition is nonsense.I didn't say they'd been abolished, I said the Executive paid them. But you are right, of course. The situation is not great, to put it mildly. My point (completely wrongly phrased first time round... I'll try to do better) is that due to devolution and the LibDem presence in the government, we've been spared the spectre of variable top-up fees (or, alternatively, been deprived of a sparkling opportunity to improve the standing of the country's universities, if you see it like that)Free personal care on the other hand is an achievement that can be credited to PR. Only problem is that it has nothing to do with the coalition government. It was not part of the coalition agreement and was forced through by the Liberals threatening to vote against the government of which they were part. Wasn't aware of that, although I do vaguely remember a skirmish about it. It was an achievement of PR though.

(Incidentally, I thought it was bloody cheeky of Labour to make "Free personal care for the elderly - delivered" one of their election campaign slogans.)
Originally posted by Nikk
Arrest Warrant? Search? I didn't know that you could you buy these things in Scotland. Or was someone adopting a "pile it high sell it cheap" strategy selling chinese warrants thus pushing those making the local hand crafted version out of business?:p Full story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1058426.stm)
Originally posted by mummymonkey
Anyone to keep the raving commie nationalists out.Without wanting to start a full-blown pro-Nat/anti-Nat debate... a lot of people in the SNP are actually concerned that it might be shifting to the right. I take it you don't see things that way...?

Interesting Ian

20th January 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Giz

Cuz they're into that materialism thing right?

First of all I should state I haven't come into this forum to initiate a quarrel with anyone.

I see no innate justice in an unregulated capatalist economy. I believe it is a fallacy to somehow suppose that the natural state, without government intervention, is somehow just. Bear in mind that I am not talking about practicalities.

Jon_in_london

20th January 2004, 09:56 AM

Interesting that DON brought up PFI, as its something I would like to discuss.

To me it seems like a good idea if implemented properly, of course PFI is being implemented horribly and seems like an awfull idea at moment but....

How PFI should work:
Tenders are put out for a certain piece of work, many companys put in their proposal and the gov chooses the one offering best value for money. Competition between the tendering companies means that value is improved and cost to the government is driven down.

The winning company signs a contract stipulating exactly what is demanded with fines or even the withdrawl of the contract if the levels of service are not met. Competition and the threat of hefty fines and the loss of the contract means that the gov and thus the taxpayer get the best value for money.

Should the company fail to meet its contactual obligations, hefty fines are imposed. The company must dip into any profit it makes to ensure service is adequate. If the company is unable to do so, it will lose the contract or go bankrupt.

Tough.

How PFI doesnt work:
Tenders are put out for a certain piece of work, many companys put in their proposal and the gov chooses the one offering either an unrealistically low quote, big donations to the Labour party or lots of pies to Jon Prescott.

The winning company signs a contract stipulating exactly what is demanded with fines or even the withdrawl of the contract if the levels of service are not met.

The winning company then does the absolute minimum in order to maximise profits and service slips faaaaarrrrrrrr below what is contactually obligated let alone what is exceptable to the taxpayer.

The government issues a petty fine against the company. The company then says it doesnt have the money to provide the service as a result of the fine (in spite of making record profits) so the government gives the company a disgustingly large amount of taxpayers money to keep things running which goes straight into the shareholders pockets.

So the taxpayers get ***** service and has to pay a fortune for it, while the company makes an absolute fortune out of the taxpayer, the Labour coffers are full, Jon Prescott is fatter than ever and might even buy another Jaguar!

Simple eh?

Matabiri

20th January 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I feel ill at the thought of voting labour because, apart from the economy under Gordon, the labour party has been a complete and abject miserable failure and has betrayed almost every promise and principle they claimed to have. And like Heath said, The amount of cronyism, corruption and plundering of taxpayers money is so spectacular it makes a Nigerian customs officer look possitively incorruptable.

I think that Gordon Brown's been very, very lucky with the economy. He's raised taxes, stifled enterprise, and his predictions of how much he's going to borrow are consistently large underestimates. And yet, for some reason, the economy has carried on growing and interest rates are low (the sole actual good thing he did was to pass control of interest rates back to the Bank of England). I also think that part of the reason he's desperate to move to Number 10 is that he knows current borrowing levels (on a per capita and national basis) are unsustainable and will go t*ts up, and he doesn't want to be in charge when it happens so he can maintain his undeserved reputation for prudency.

The nice thing about Nigerian customs officials is that when bribed, they stay bribed.

Seismosaurus

20th January 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by heath
Just how bad were the last tory government that people would rather stay with labour than change to _anything_ else?

Can anyone enlighten me?

The real problem with Major's government was that he had a small majority and a number of rebels who spoke up for and voted with their principles rather than with party lines.

This combination is a certain recipie for weak government. Look at Maggie - she frequently had rebellions from the back benches, often 40 or more Conservatives would vote against the party. But nobody cared, because with a 100 majority 40 rebels are irrelevant.

But Major started at what, 20? And by the end he was down to single figures. In that environment even a handful of rebels can cause trouble. It was a recipie perfect for endless bad headlines and infighting.

Major should have called a general election as soon as this started happening, but didn't because he thought (probably rightly) that he'd lose it. But in the long run it just did more damage.

Rather than lose one election and then clean house in opposition so as to come back next time with a serious challenge, he ensured that the Tories were so unpopular that Labour would have at least three or four terms in office.

Labour learned the lesson from this extremely well, which is why they keep such tight control over their own MPs.

Or is it a case of died in the wool labour supporters voting for a party name rather than their actions? It's a known fact that most people will _never_ change their party aliegance. Anyone want to own up to that?

I used to vote Lib Dem when they said they regarded the Conservatives and Labour as being as bad as each other; my dream was a minority Conservative government in a coalition with the Lib Dems. Then they started toadying up to Labour, so I stopped voting for them.

I vote Conservative these days, both because they are the closest match for my views (actually they're rather more moderate than I am on most issues), and because I hate Tony Blair and the Labour government.

Though I must say, Tony won a few brownie points with me for the Iraq thing; the rest of his party lost them over the same issue.