egafd.com

Sad but true. Did you know that only 1 out of the last 3 Prime Minister's was elected by the people? People called for General Elections to happen in both incidents, John Mayor in 1990 and Gordon Brown in 2007, but both times it was declined because the new PM's knew they wouldn't win it - they would only let the public vote if they were going to vote for them, when it was realised the public wouldn't vote for them, the new PM didn't allow them to vote.

Labour "won" in 2005 with only 36% of the vote, many people didn't bother voting as they didn't like the Government or the Opposition and if you add in all of those absteiners only 20% of Britain voted Labour in 2005, yet they still won! Blair promised to do a full term but went after 2 years and a certain arrogant egotistical, one-eyed, Scotsman just appointed himelf as PM even though no one wanted him. I don't know if I'll vote again. It is completely pointless.

I've not voted since the 80's, seeing I live in an area where Labour could field a donkey and it would still get elected

In Britain, people don't vote for the PM, they vote for their local MP so if there's a change in leader halfway through the term, there's no need for an election. You would still have your same MP that you voted for.

So many people say they don't vote because it's pointless. If everyone thought like that, it is pointless. When you see throughout the world people dying for their right to vote just as they did here in years past, it pisses me off that so many folk are so willing to just give it up.

You are right that people have died for the vote, but in countries where they are longing to have it I can gaurentee you they would be very miffed if, after a few years, they saw the grotesque abuse of the whole system that regularly takes place in the West. Have you noticed how so many wealthy, well-connected, people end up in power? And how many of their family members aswell? Parties are generally returned to office, and this is true throughout the western world, on a minority of the vote. I agree with you that people vote for a party and not a leader but you are bound to agree that the appeal of a certain leader can hugely increase the numbers of people that will vote for that party for that 4 or 5 year term. People saying to each other "I think he'll make a good Prime Minister" etc.

Also, that person will not be just a Left or Right politican, they will have a certain policital view within that - someone could be on the left or right of the Tory Party, or on the left of the Labour Party ('the old guard' as they are often called) or the moderate right or whatever. So changing leader can mean a differnt political ethos coming from the party and filtering down to the country in terms of how the country is run. Imagine if Blair had been ousted in a coup and Dennis Skinner had taken over (obviously very unlikely), or if John Major was binned-off and John Redwood had've won (he tried and failed). Everything would be very differnt.

Demcracy, such as it is, is the worst form of government, apart from all the others.

That's the problem with the "first past the post" system, such as exits in the UK.

And the fact that many folk regard voting as little more than trying to choose between the lesser of two evils (or three, if you count the LibDems) only makes matters worse, because more people don't see the point and / or simply can't be arsed, and thus don't vote.

Some form of PR would certainly improve matters and would be a truer reflection of "the will of the people". But as long as you've got crap politicians who don't inspire people to vote and who many people simply don't trust, you're always going to struggle to even get a respectable turnout on polling day.

- Eric

I just saw Charles Faulkner being interviewed on the BBC News Channel. He was Tony Blair's flatmate back in the 1970's, I was aware of this before, and when his buddy Tony became PM it was clearly a case of "any chance of a job Tone?". People are supposed to be elected to sit in the Cabinet, and the point of the House Of Lords, as far as people who have Ministerial portfolio's are concerned, is that every Government department has one Minister who is in the Lords so they can participate in the debates there which concern that Department's business. This has been hugely abused over the years, and is often used as a means of getting your friend a job in the Cabinet (think Lord Young under Thatcher), this incidence where Blair just gave Faulkner a job as Minister for the Millenium Dome, by getting him into Government by giving him a seat in the Lords, or whether it's Peter Mandelson recently. Faulkner only got a job in Government cos he was Blair's friend, and will now no doubt be making a fortune in the private sector trading off the contacts he made in Whitehall, like all of Blair's ex-ministers (including Blair himself obviously) are now doing. They're all wankers!

Sadly its this democracy is dead stuff and the I can't be arsed people who cause the problem.

If everyone went out a voted in the manner they claim they will then they would have the person in power they elected.

If you can't be arsed then you've nobody but yourself to blame.

I've only got involved as much as I do because I know that 'green' Dave will cause more damage than anyone else ever will if / when he gets in.

No gimmicks - the prick has done one of the biggest today and he's not even in yet.

My vote will probably result in being a loss next time but at least in doing it I've said I don't want 'green' Dave and his bollocks.

Say nowt and then I've no right to piss and moan when the shit really hits the fan.

Democracy isn't dead just being allowed in to fail.